Running head: The Issues of Internet Filtering

The Issues of Internet Filtering from a Librarians Perspective

Meghan Bing Dan Brower Kathryn Ballard

Research in Library/Information Science Professor Tuai August 7, 2013

The Issues of Internet Filtering

The Issues of Internet Filtering from a Librarians Perspective Abstract:

The Childrens Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requires libraries to install filtering software on public access and school use computers. Most libraries are publicly funded and therefore must adhere to CIPAs requirements to block sites based on specific criteria. Though filtering software is in direct conflict with ALAs core values, the Supreme Court upheld CIPA as constitutional. Many libraries use filtering software even though they are not always reliable. Studies have shown that over-blocking (blocking too many sites that may have educational information) and under-blocking (allowing sites that images that can be construed as harmful to minors) are consistent issues with filters. One study cited that 24% of health sites were blocked while another cited that family-friendly search engines were more than 90% inaccessible because of over-filtering. Despite these figures, most libraries install and use filtering software in order to avoid steep financial consequences. Internet filtering software is a point of contention for library professionals because of their restrictions on the access to research and information.

Keywords: CIPA, internet filtering, over-blocking, under-blocking

Introduction:
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Childrens Internet Protection Act as constitutional and not in violation with citizens first amendment rights. CIPA requires the installation of filtering software to block access to obscene material in libraries public computers. (Sobel, 2003, p. 3). Internet filters are designed to block images portraying (a) obscenity, (b) child pornography, or (c) images harmful to minors. There are three main designs

The Issues of Internet Filtering of filters designed around blocking (a) URLs (b) keywords or (c) blacklists. Libraries across the United States reacted differently. Many have opposed the use of filters, such as the San Francisco public libraries, and some claim that filters are necessary. Some strategies for adaptation have included allowing the user to turn off the filter for research (Hinckley, 2002, p. 3). A librarian considering the literature notices key themes emerge. There are many

justifications for internet filters. Since public libraries are government funded, following CIPA is often a necessity. However, librarians must also consider the reliability of filters. Filters are intended to only block certain information. When unnecessary information is blocked, then the information of the user is unreasonably limited.

Filters and CIPA:

As online activity has increased, the government perceived a need to protect children. Congress attempted to regulate the information children are able to view in public libraries and schools. CIPA requires that computers block three specific types of content: obscene materials, child pornography and images harmful to minors (Hinckley, 2002, p. 3). Jaeger and Yan defines those three terms as: obscene materials being, offensive to community standards, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The second type, child pornography is defined as depicting any form of sexual conduct or lewd exhibitionism involving minors. The final type encompasses a range of otherwise protected forms of speech. CIPA defines harmful to minors as including any depiction of nudity, sexual activity, or simulated sexual activity that has no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value to minors (2009, p. 2). The majority of libraries and schools meet CIPA requirements in order to receive discounted rates on services. It was determined that 11% of libraries confine their filter to the

The Issues of Internet Filtering childrens section. 64% will disable the filter upon request, but less than 20% will disable it for both children and adults (Cho, C., Heins, M. & Feldman, 2006, p. 12).

Defense of Filters:
The American Library Association (ALA) has been a consistent and vocal opponent of CIPA, claiming that it was an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment freedoms. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the constitutionality of CIPA (U.S. v. American Library Ass'n, Inc., 2003). This has done little to deter their belief that CIPA fundamentally violates their core values, and is both ineffective and over effective. While all studies validate the notions that filters block some legitimate information and fail to block 100% of pornography, filtering technology has improved enough that it is largely successful at both. The argument that filters dont always work so their use should be abandoned altogether analogous to arguing that homicide laws should be abolished because a few people still commit murder. Viewing imperfect filters as complete failures is unique to internet filtering. In print resources, it is understood all collections will have limitations and contain inaccuracies (Burt, 1997, p.46). Yet, the argument is made that filtering technologies should be abandoned altogether for having the same shortcomings.

Reliability of Filters:
All sides in the debate over filtering have studies to back their claims. These figures vary widely and should be viewed with skepticism, as Hansen, Resnick, & Richardson state: Most empirical studies of error rates have suffered from methodological flaws in sample selection, classification procedures, or implementation of blocking tests. Results have also been interpreted inappropriately, in part because there are two independent measures

The Issues of Internet Filtering of over-blocking that are sometimes confused, and likewise for under-blocking. (2004, p.68) Determining general failure rates for internet filters is largely impossible. Software companies

frequently update their software and accuracy rates can change daily. Even if it were possible to determine the reliability of filters at a given time, the sheer number of filtering products makes testing a prohibitively large task. A quick search for internet filtering software on the CDW website returned 3131 results, doubtlessly many of the results are duplicates, but even if the total number of products is 1/10th of that total, it would be difficult to test them all simultaneously.

What libraries dont use filters and why:

Given the financial consequences for noncompliance, most libraries have opted to install filtering software on their computers. The few notable exceptions that did not put filtering software on their computers were only able to because of the assistance of their local governments. Maine has approved compensation to libraries who risk losing government funding due to their refusal to install filtering software. As Susan DiMattia explains, libraries need not apply for federal discounts if the library determines that satisfying conditions for receiving that discount would substantially compromise the librarys standards or mission (2004). The San Francisco Board of Supervisors banned filters on public library terminals designated for users over 13. This was possible because federal funding comprised just $20,000 of its $50 million budget (Scheeres, 2001). Many libraries comply with filtering regulations, but find subtle ways around the system. The filtering software of the New York Public Library branches defaults to minimal blocking settings. Users over the age of 17 have the option of turning filters off altogether (Montero, Fredericks, 2011).

The Issues of Internet Filtering

Library Filters limit minors access to research:

Despite new improvements to filters, there is still a high error rate. Because of how sites are blocked, many useful sites are blocked: everything from war to safe sex and public health. Examples include WebSENSE blocking Keep Nacogdoches Beautiful, a Texas cleanup project, under the category of sex, and The Shoah Project, a Holocaust remembrance page, under the category of racism/hate (Cho, C., Heins, M. & Feldman, A ,2006, pg. 6). Teens have turned to the internet increasingly to answer new questions about their health and personal development (Holt, 2006, pg. 3). Teenagers, in particular, face sensitive health issues: substance abuse, birth control, eating disorders, mental health, etc. The confidentiality of the internet allows them to seek out the answers to those questions (Resnick, P., Richardson, C. & Rideout, V., 2002, pg. 5). In a study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, it was revealed that, when tested on 6 different filtering programs on the highest filtering setting, 24% of health sites were blocked, 50% safe sex sites were blocked and 90% of porn sites were blocked. (Resnick, P., Richardson, C. & Rideout, V., 2002, pg. 10).

Filters Limit General Access to Information:

The free speech community has raised concern that filters intending to protect children are over-filtering and therefore unreasonably limiting research abilities of patrons. The Electronic Privacy Information Center released a report showing that a family-friendly search engine rendered more than 90 percent inaccessible in libraries due to over-filtering of otherwise available online content (Sobel, 2003, pg. 7). Similar studies have revealed this number to be an accurate representation. In a survey, conducted by South Dakota Law Review in the state, 90% of libraries revealed to use filters in order to earn government e-rate funding. Several directors complained

The Issues of Internet Filtering about the filters slowing down the speed of internet searches, but said that patrons did not complain about their first amendment rights being violated. 50% of libraries said that they had received requests for filters to be turned off, with the most common reasons to be access dating sites and Hotmail (Spurlin & Garry, 2009, pg. 6).

According to a survey conducted of the libraries in Indiana, 66% of libraries use filters on public computers. 32% of this number reported no problems with the filters, 22% reported that patrons were unable to pull up needed information on the internet. 21% reported that patrons were still able to pull up pornographic materials (Comer, 2005, pg. 3).

Conclusion:
Internet filters actively block sites that may be harmful to minors. The Childrens Internet Protection Act (CIPA) upholds specific restrictions for libraries. Because of the behavior of these filters, though, library professionals and library users encounter issues such as overblocking and under-blocking of sites. Library and information administrators must take into account the benefits and costs of internet filtering software for their libraries and communities. Though most libraries use filters, studies show that these filters block educational and research information. Family-friendly search engines are virtually inaccessible because of over-filtering. There has been much research on the behavior of filters and the use of filters in libraries, both public and school. These studies show the nature of over-blocking and under-blocking. They also explain that some libraries choose to not install and use filtering software, but only once they have local government assistance. The American Library Association contends that CIPA conflicts directly with its core values and violates first amendment rights by blocking information unnecessarily. This directly affects the information which a user receives.

The Issues of Internet Filtering Though there is research on filters themselves, it is difficult to get a complete picture on the affect that filtering software has on library user behavior. Whether or not the use of filters discourages library computer use would be an advantageous area of study to help library administrators make the most informed decision regarding internet filtering software. Solutions and workarounds exist for filtering, but often times these are costly or require the further

assistance of local governments. Until failure rates can be more accurately tested, internet filters may remain a source of contention for library professionals and a source of frustration for students, researchers, and library users in general.

The Issues of Internet Filtering References

Burt, D. W. (1997). In defense of filtering. American Libraries, 46-48. Cho, C., Heins, M. & Feldman, A. (2006). Internet Filters: a public policy report. Brennan Center for Justice, 1- 87. Retrieved from www.fepproject.org/policyreports/filters2.pdf Comer, A.D. (2005). Studying Indiana Usage of Internet Filters. Information Today. 1-7. Derry, H., Hansen, D., Rideout, V. Resnick, P. & Richardson, C. (2002). Does PornographyBlocking Software Block Access to Health Information on the Internet? JAMA, 288 (22). 1-8. Retrieved from: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=195607 Duthie, F. (2010). Libraries and the Ethics of Censorship. The Australian Library Journal. 1-9. Retrieved from: http://s640if.wikispaces.com/file/view/Libraries+And+The+Ethics+of+Censorship.pdf DiMattia, S. (2004). Maine to Replace CIPA Losses. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2004/06/ljarchives/maine-to-replace-cipa-losses/ Goldstein, A. (2002). Like a Sieve: The Child Internet Protection Act and Ineffective Filters in Libraries. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 12(4). 1-14. Retrieved from: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1238&context=iplj Hansen, D., Resnick, P., & Richardson, C. (2004). Calculating Error Rates for Filtering Software. Communications of the ACM, 47 (9). 67-71. Hinckley, S. (2002). Your money or your speech: the childrens internet protection act and the congressional assault on the first amendment in public libraries. Washingon University Law Quarterly, 80 (4). 1-75. Retrieved from http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/804/Hinckley_book_pages.pdf Holt, D.B. (2006). Internet Filtering and the Adolescent Gay/Lesbian Patron. Library Student Journal.1-9 Retrieved from: http://www.librarystudentjournal.org/index.php/lsj/article/view/28/24 Montero, D., Fredericks, B. (2011). City Libraries Say Checking Out Porn Protected by First Amendment. New York Times, Retrieved from http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/porn_ok_at_city_libraries_hSqZExlZstWZIzeNX47 VCM

The Issues of Internet Filtering

10

Resnick, P., Richardson, C. & Rideout, V. (2002). See No Evil: How Internet Filters Affect the Search for Online Health Information. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.1-16 Retrieved from: http://kff.org/other/report/see-no-evil-how-internet-filters-affect/ Scheeres, J. (2001). Library: We Dont Want No Filters. Wired. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2001/10/47283 Sobel, D. (2003).Internet Filters and Public Libraries. First Reports, 4 (2), 1-20. Retrieved from: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/madison/wpcontent/uploads/2011/03/Internetfilters.pdf Spurlin, C. & Garry, P. (2009). Does Filtering Stop the Flow of Valuable Information? A Case Study of the Childrens Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in South Dakota.South Dakota Law Review, (54). 1-8. Retrieved from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1368900 U.S. v. American Library Ass'n, Inc., 539 U.S. 194 (2003).