There is going to be an interesting story that will come out in a regional
newspaper this weekend, and likely will travel. I will send you the link
when the story appears. I am suspecting this story will stir different
thoughts. I was thinking of keeping my mouth shut until after the story, but
then figured I ought to alert you folks so that you are prepared.
A while back the US government provided some funding to Peacefire
http://www.peacefire.org/ to develop software that can easily circumvent
filters. Yes, the same US Government that require schools and libraries to
install filtering provided the funds to circumvent filtering. But the agency
that provided these funds was Voice of America and the intent was to allow
folks from countries that filter controversial information from their
citizens.
Anyway, this Circumventor software can be installed on any Windows machine
with a broadband connection. It sets up a proxy server that kids can go to
to then be able to get to other sites on the Internet. Please do not ask mre
for technicalities -- that is not my forte.
I was wondering when students were going to find out about this.
Well, apparently one did and he set up his computer as a proxy and he let
other students know about it and they have been using his computer to get
around their school's filter (possibly also their home filter). This student
was in a computer entrepreneur class at school and had learned how to make
money from this through some connection with Google (don't ask me about this
either, I am lousy at making money). So he proudly described his project in
his class. And his teacher, not thinking very clearly, thought it was such a
great idea that he had the student present his project in several classes.
The school was not as impressed.
The teacher is now facing discipline. The student was suspended and told
that if he did not remove this from his computer he would be expelled.
Please explain to me the legal basis upon which a school can justify
intruding into actions that students engage in from homes.
In talking to the reporter it sounded to me like this student was just
trying to make it possible for students to get to material that they have a
perfectly legitimate right to access that has been inappropriately blocked
by the filter. Now, of course, other students using this system could have a
range of intentions. But I do not think it could be legitimately argued that
this student installed the system in an attempt to subvert policies and get
to material that was inappropriate. I think his intent was to be able to get
to, and allow other students get to, material they have a constitutional
right to access, but can't access because of the filter and the lack of an
effective override process.
Now this raises issues about CIPA. There is a really great article on the
CIPA decision that I recommend all of you review. It is here:
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_4/minow/
In a nutshell, while the justices upheld the CIPA law (by a narrow margin),
there was language in some of the decisions that raised the possibility of
legal risk to schools and libraries if filters are implemented in a way that
results in limiting access to constitutionally protected material. If there
is a chance that you filter is blocking access to constitutionally protected
material, the practice that is necessary to limit this legal risk is an
effective system to override the filter.
Now, how many of your schools is the filter blocking access to appropriate
material and do you have an effective system to allow for the override of
the filter in time to allow students to access appropriate material that
they need/want to access for an educational purpose?
If this is not possible, then you are interfering with your students'
constitutional rights of access to material (see my description of the legal
issues in an article on From Now On http://www.fno.org/feb2005/covfeb.html.
So where is the ALCU when you need them? Well, now, the ACLU is in a very
interesting position. You see, there is another federal law called the
Children's Online Protection Act (COPA). This is a criminal law that
requires web sites with adult material to have a system that prevents access
by folks under 18. (Of course, the effectiveness of this law will be about
the same as the effectiveness of US laws prohibiting online gambling.)
The primary legal argument the ALCU is using in its case to get this law
held unconstitutional is that filtering is a less restrictive alternative to
this criminal law. The recent Supreme Court decision sent the COPA case back
to the district court level telling the government that if it wants to
prevail on the COPA case it has to prove that filtering does not work.
All you folks in other countries are hereby given permission to ROFL.
(As an aside, the ALA should have been far more careful in partnering with
ALCU on the challenge on CIPA. The ALCU was basically trying to to defeat
CIPA at the same time it was relying on its argument that filtering is a
less restrictive alternative for protecting children in the COPA case. It is
for this reason that the ACLU never presented any testimony in the CIPA case
on the point that filtering does not actually prevent people from accessing
porn. In fact, much of their case was based on the concern that filtering in
libraries would prevent adults from accessing adult material. And I for one
do not give a rat's a** about the right of an adult to access adult material
in a public library if there is any chance a child might be nearby.)
By now it should be very clear to folks why I call these happenings
Filtering Follies. I should write a book. Actually I did. I spent many years
trying to convince educators that there are more effective strategies to
address concerns about inappropriate material online and to manage student
use of the Internet in a more effective, comprehensive manner. I wrote
articles that appeared in Education Week, The School Administrator, and the
like and a book setting forth this comprehensive approach. And no one was
really interested. Most school leaders had bought into the foolish notion
that filtering was the answer.
Even folks far more conservative than I have maintained that filtering is
not the answer. Look at the Youth, Pornography and the Internet report, by
the National Research Council.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10261.html?onpi_newsdoc05022002
In the preface, Dick Thornburgh (former Republican Attorney General) stated:
"(This report) will disappoint those who expect a technological "quick fix"
to the challenge of pornography on the Internet. ... It will disappoint
parents, school officials, and librarians who seek surrogates to fulfill the
responsibilities of training and supervision needed to truly protect
children from inappropriate sexual materials on the Internet."
Duh, I could have said that myself. In fact I did. My testimony to the NRC
committee is on my web site at:
http://csriu.org/onlinedocs/documents/nwnas.html.
Now I certainly would not condone any activity of youth that has the
possibility of causing harm or allowing inappropriate behavior. But having
an adopted son from India, who shares Gandhi's birth date and was born in
the region where Gandhi lived when he coordinated the revolution against the
British Government, I see nothing wrong with a little non-violent protest if
done for appropriate purposes.
In other words, if students are setting up Circumventor so they can play
games, write on their personal blogs, bully other students, or visit porn
sites while at school, this is definitely not OK. But my opinion is that if
the manner in which schools are using filtering technology is preventing
students from accessing material they have a right and should be able to
access and if the school has not set up a system that ensures the rapid
ability to override the filter, then setting up Circumventor is justifiable
non-violent protest. I do understand that some of you may disagree with me
on this, and I respect that.
But, I lobbied members of the Senate to try to stop CIPA, I have written
articles and a book promoting a more comprehensive approach to address the
legitimate concerns, and I testified before the COPA Commission and the NRC
on effective education/supervision based strategies to no avail. And from
the comments posted on this list from time to time, it does not appear that
any of you have had any success in communicating about these concerns
either. So maybe the kids can deal with this situation.
According to the reporter, another thing that is happening is that students
who knew about or were using this proxy are now implementing the
Circumventor on their own computers. Knowing youth, I would not be surprised
if the activity were expanded, especially as news of this incident comes
out. This incident could very well be a tipping point. Which means that by
next school year, there is a possibility that no school filter will be
secure.
All the best.
Nancy
--
Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D.
Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use
http://csriu.org
nwillard@csriu.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law.
To change your LM_NET status, e-mail to: listserv@listserv.syr.edu
In the message write EITHER: 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET 2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL
3) SET LM_NET MAIL 4) SET LM_NET DIGEST * Allow for confirmation.
LM_NET Help & Information: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/
Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/
EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://elann.biglist.com/el-announce/
LM_NET Supporters: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ven.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
LM_NET
Mailing List Home