BS: What would you do?

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Jul 03 - 10:44 AM

Yup, misophist, sure is. Sure is. But I'd rather waste money that way if I must than in some other ways I see it wasted.

'Course, I'd MUCH rather use it for something else entirely. Like books, recordings...even performances in the Library.

To paraphrase Jules Verne, "What one person can conceive, another can circumvent."

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: GUEST,misophist
Date: 10 Jul 03 - 10:21 AM

Re Content Filtering: It's not a particular interest of mine but about a year ago I ran across a web site with detailed instructions on how to get around filtering. They also mentioned that many figure out how to do it on their own. Link that with unreliability and it seems a clear waste of money.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 04:49 PM

I just spoke with the Chair of our Library Board of Trustees, and we will be discussing a revised Acceptable Use Policy at the next meeting.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 04:16 PM

>>. . . and you cannot be the arbiters of what is legal or not legal. Maybe point that out as well. <<

This of course risks chilling privacy rights. If the powers that be object to its ambiguity and breadth, then you can even provide a nonexclusive list of examples of what may prompt reporting, which will serve to focus you on areas such as child porn, as opposed to something more political. "Such as a claim or other evidence that images of minors in a state of undress were accessed." (You get the point.)

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 03:55 PM

You should modify the Acceptable Use Policy to include the library's "policy" on reporting to law enforcement, i.e. provide advance warning that you will report, including card identification, any information suggesting illegal content was or may have been accessed on the facilities' computers.

Someone above mentioned that local law come into play, and you cannot be the arbiters of what is legal or not legal. Maybe point that out as well.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 03:52 PM

One of the big issues in whether or not to filter the Internet can be phrased as "If I would never buy it for the library collection, why should I allow Internet access to it?"

(I like to ask, "If we're not getting a cut of the action, why should we permit access to Internet gambling sites?" Yes, I'm jesting.)

Actually, libraries have been providing access to the Internet since about 1988, and to the World Wide Web since its inception. You might have had to look hard to find it, it might have been limited to the staff of academic libraries, but it's been there.

It has only been since the WWW permitted simply, easy access to websites worldwide that problems have cropped up -- and not just with pornography. In the course of my job I've visited websites that featured pornography (and some of it neither shocked nor embarassed me, but simply made me mad that such exploitation of others could exist), making your explosives, "gothic", racial hatred, religious hatred, pro-terrorism, the best way to kill someone, gambling, how to cheat in school, and others.

Filters usually work on a combination of predefined URLs (playboy.com, for instance) and common words (you can probably fill in the blanks). But they can't and don't contain everything -- a filter made in the US, for instance, might not contain the Finnish word for "penis" in its list of no-no words. They are also often too inclusive, prohibiting terms such as "breast" and "breast of chicken" indiscriminately. The Children's Internet Protective Act actually says that filtering should be based on graphical images and THAT technology is still some years off. Besides, there is nothing to prevent me from creating a website dealing with, say, pornographic necrophilia, and indexing it under terms like "teddy bears" and "cooking recipes."

And oh, yeah, we have to be able to turn off the filter if requested to do so by an adult.

Big, big sigh...I was just told that the original offender is back in the building -- but he won't be using our Internet connections this time.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 03:27 PM

I thought that with the Patriot Act furor the ALA would have a legislative action committee concering the scope of librarians' reporting obligations. I suppose the Act was only about making them respond to requests, but still. . . . Internet access is such a novel concept for libraries -- providing access to materials they don't have or control. This is such a large issue I would expect the national organization to help develop guidelines, if it desires to maintain relevance. Oh, well, you're probably right it would just have been one more unproductive telephone call in my day.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 03:10 PM

And *that*, Walking Eagle, is one of the differences between public and academic libraries! If I tried to embarass some of the people who come in here they'd look at me like I was saying nothing at all.

The person on duty happened to be passing by the PC with the offending pictures and saw them on the screen -- just as anyone, of any age, passing by could. (Privacy screens were tried here, but while they do prevent people to the sides from viewing what's on the screen they do nothing to stop someone directly behind the screen from seeing what's on it, and the problem got worse instead of better.)

While I am a member of the American Library Association, I doubt that calling them would have been much help. They deal with the broad picture, not specifics -- unfortunately in circumstances such as this.

Calling my profs from grad school would have been really hard, since Case Western Reserve University, where I went, no longer has a School of Library and Information Science. Neither does Columbia, Northern Illinois University, Brigham Young, or many others. Too much cost for too little return for the Universities during the '80s and '90s.

(Come to think of it -- my high school no longer exists, my undergrad college changed its name, my grad school is gone, why, if my grade school ever goes under I won't know anything at all!!)

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 02:29 PM

Rap

I'm the head honcho in the evening here at our library. We have the benefit of a campus security officer now who can ( and does )check what the users are viewing. Our problem? Students can say they are doing research for their class on human sexuality. At one point, the professors of this class would give us names of the students enrolled in the class. Haven't seen that list lately. We have a set policy regarding use of the terminals, but few of our reference librarians enforce it.

Our reference terminals are in plain view on our main floor. I once made a very strong comment to one of our offenders that what SHE was doing is against library use policy and is not socially acceptable. I didn't think that a new shade of embarrassed red was possible, but I was wrong. I wish people would realize how powerful public peer pressure is.

I am as conflicted as every other librarian. And our conflict is what these porn producers play on.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: Amergin
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 02:19 PM

good deal...

about filters...well there are ways around those....

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 02:17 PM

With hindsight, I'd say don't mess with the copmuter at all once you have a reportable situation.

(But this cause me all sorts of questions as to how staff learns what someone is looking at in the first place. )

Too bad I came in after the answer. My answer was going to have been, seriously, that I would call the American Library Association, first, and my (i.e. your) grad school professors who focused on ethics, second.

This is very tricky, and I imagine you will have even tougher ones in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: Sorcha
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 02:03 PM

Thank you, Rap. Sound like good moves all.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 02:01 PM

It's around noon MDT, so here's what happened.

He was asked to leave by the person in charge on Saturday, which he did without a problem. The PC was put to "Out Of Order" status so that any evidence on it wouldn't be changed or removed, pending decisions on Monday.

After looking at the "favorites" which were stored in Internet Explorer, that is, actually looking at the websites, I returned the PC to "Out of Order." I then took what documentation we had (you have to reserve a PC to surf, due to demand) and called the cops.

I was advised by a detective that such activity was suspect, to say the least. When asked the person's name (remember that they have to reserve a PC?) the officer knew it; that afternoon the detectives came with a computer specialist and removed the hard drive from the PC.

The PC is, naturally, still out of order!

The hard drive has been taken to the FBI to be cloned (we happen to be home to the FBI's Information Technology Center) and it will be reinstalled (minus some websites!) sometime today. The person who was on duty on Saturday will also be questioned this afternoon about the incident.

In the meantime, we've banned the person from using the Library's Internet connections for two months -- one for visiting the sites and one for changing the software settings on the PC (the homepage was switched to an adult porn site). He has been in trouble with his activities in the library before (not for this sort of thing) and the next time he "acts up" he'll be permanently prohibited.

Yes, we can legally do this and more.

Before I got here the Library had another incident of this sort, this time involving true child porn. I took the same steps as were taken then, it turns out.

As for a filter, there probably is one in our future, much as I dislike the idea. While we might not have to install one because of the CIPA ruling by the Supremes, there is a thing called "public opinion" and "public relations." Besides, I see no reason to supply access to Internet gambling (for example).

I don't like filtering. First of all, it doesn't work well. Secondly, it doesn't work well. Thirdly...you get the idea. Lastly, it's expensive and a problem in a time when library budgets are being cut -- and this doesn't even touch on freedom of information issues!

<>

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: Janie
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 01:56 PM

You are right Nicole. I certainly jumped the gun in my response. Rapaire really did not provide sufficient info. about the situation to suggest what kind of response would be appropriate, and I operated on assumptions instead of asking for more details. I'd like to think in real life I would be a bit more deliberate and thoughtful.

We should soon be finding out what he did do, and (I bet) more information about the situation to justify whatever his actions were.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 01:43 PM

Your actions will be dictated by local pornography and child protection laws. Take legal advice.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 12:43 PM

1. The library's acceptable use policy was passed by the Library Board after being vetted by the city's legal department.

2. Around noon, Mountain Daylight Time (1 Central, 2 Eastern, 3 Atlantic, 11 Pacific, 10 Alaska, and I'm not going to figure it beyond that) I'll let y'all know what happened.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: NicoleC
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 12:42 PM

My, ya'll are jumping to conclusions. Is Anne Geddes a pornographer because she takes pictures of naked babies? A pedaphile? Rapaire hasn't given us enough information to make the determination that he is either evil, sick, a nut case or any other epithet. For all we know, he could have been looking for medical information on the development of children. I'm sure no one here can claim that they've never typed the wrong address in your browser and ended up somewhere unsavory.

Nontheless, the web site insisting that they are not "pornography" reminds me of emails that insist they are not "spam."

I would: 1) blacklist that particular web site on the internal network, 2) advise the staff to monitor this patron's behavior if he returns, 3) check the patron's name against the various online registries of sex offenders, and if he is an offender, report to the police that he may still be a hazard.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: GUEST,isophist
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 10:20 AM

I would say that, since a library must be concerned about liability, you must consult the library's lawyer, if there is one. And it's a good bet that the lawyer would tell you to file a report. Liability can be a huge problem.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: Burke
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 09:58 AM

It seems you have an acceptable use policy without a policy for dealing with unacceptable use.

Check with the library's legal counsel. If your library doesn't have one, then you need to find out what legal counsel you have for anything that arises.

Check with resources available through ALA or your state library board, discuss this with your board, & instate a policy for dealing with this when it comes up again.

To those who are suggesting filters: THEY DON'T WORK! Ask any Mudcatter who has to deal with them. Look here. Filters block perfectly legitimate material while letting questionable through. Porn sites should be shut down, but in this virtual world many are beyond US jurisdiction.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: Janie
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 09:17 AM

I would probably talk to the local district or prosecuting attorney's office, and expect them to do whatever follow-up may be warranted. Even though the sites do not apparently meet the legal definition of pornography, from your description of the URL's they apparently are sites designed for pedophiles. It is very disturbing that this individual actually logged onto these sites at a public library, and suggests that the children in the community are potentially at risk from this person. Where pedophilia is concerned, I think your first responsibility is toward the protection of the children of your community. The patron's right to privacy, etc. takes a back seat.

Will eagerly await your post re: what action you actually did take.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 08:39 AM

Everyone using the Internet stations is required to initial, after reading, a card which gives the acceptable use policy. This is also posted in several places.

Those offending against the acceptable use can be warned, banned from using the Internet access for a time or permanently. The authority for this is in the State's statutes, as well as in city statutes.

Ah, LadyJean, I *am* the Librarian. I (with the help of a staff of about 20) run the joint (under the authority of the Board of Trustees, of course).

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: GUEST,mink
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 06:17 AM

You say that the sites claimed NOT to be pornographic. If they really can claim that then the police will surely be unable to take any action.
I think I would call them, however, and offer to identify to them the guy that was looking at the photos - more for their information than for any specific current action.
I would then ensure that there was increased visibility of the library rules regarding "acceptable use".
I would not ban the customer, but would keep a good eye on him in future & if it happened again then would tell him he was no longer welcome at the facility (what are the rules, can you actually ban someone & if so with what authority & under what rules?).
What I would NOT do is to inform anyone else about the customer's actions - I think that could be dangerous & would be unfair. These things can get well out of hand.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: Gurney
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 04:23 AM

You live and learn. I thought that filters were available as freeware.
$6000!!! Get a camera and a couple of Mums for moral support and take a picture of the perv, that should scare him off.
Mind you, some of these sites are misleading until you actually go there, and then it is in the history.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: LadyJean
Date: 09 Jul 03 - 12:42 AM

You could always speak to the librarian about him, I suppose. Hollowfox! Are you out there! What's your take on this?

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: Sorcha
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 05:25 PM

1) Call the offensive patron and have a talk with him.
2) Notify local law that this has happened.
3) Give offesive patron one more chance, then ban him from the library

Law actually can't do anything at this point, but if necessary you can keep him out of the library.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 05:01 PM

SINSULL, most public libraries do not filter the Internet, or filter children's access only. The recent Supreme Court ruling on the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) makes it mandatory only for those libraries which receive money from the Universal Service Fund ("E-rate") or from the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA), and then only if the funds are used for direct access to the Internet (like a computer for the public to use to access the Internet).

My library (I'm the Director, having started on May 5 of this year) doesn't receive any E-rate money and what little LSTA we receive is not Internet access related. Ergo, we are not *legally* bound to filter the Internet. And we don't -- but historically Internet access has been limited here to those 18 and over, or to younger people when someone over 18 is with them.

Of course, this all may very well change very soon, what with the CIPA decision. Problem is, a decent filter suitable for library use costs about $6,000, and the money isn't there in many cases. I, like many others, am waiting to see what guidelines and regulations come down "from on high" in the wake of the CIPA decision -- there are supposed to be some out before August 1.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: SINSULL
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 03:55 PM

I would demand that the library put a block on porno sites. Most do. Where are you that yours hasn't?

Then I would notify the police. A man using a public library to view porn is crying out for help. He is begging someone to stop him.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: jacqui c
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 02:52 PM

I do some work for Victim Support and some of the training deals with the way in which one thing can lead to another and then onto the things that affect other people.

OK, this time the guy was only looking at the pictures, but what happens if he wants more. I know that the producers are the ones that are making the money, but, like everything else, it comes down to supply and demand. If there are people out there who want to look at pictures of naked children - and worse - then there are others who will supply that need. There's also the fact that, for some people, they have to go on to bigger and 'better' sensations and could graduate to actually harming children for real. If there was more of a fear that being caught looking would bring about serious censure of some kind then maybe some of these people would think twice about looking.

I would definitely let the police know.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: Amergin
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 02:18 PM

I'd alert the authorities...child pornography is a crime...and those who look at and produce it both belong behind bars.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 11:56 AM

I will tell what I did around noon tomorrow. In the meantime, I'm interested in what others would do and why.

They never said a word about this in grad school (but then, I graduated in 1977).

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 10:30 AM

Great point, amigo. In recent years, people are more likely to be assailed for what they say than what they do. People who produce porn live in huge mansions is So Cal and the people who look at it go to jail?

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 10:05 AM

Reporting the website, sure -- although I doubt the police, being a local agency, would be the right place to do so. The library client? No way. For one thing he could argue attractive nuisance, making the library responsible for anything bad its computers might lead to! For another thing, he was not causing harm. The site publishers were messing with kids, and are the ones who should be lifted bodily off the planet.


A

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 10:01 AM

I would have called them.
I wouldn't have expected them to do much, if anything, but it would be up to them. There are loads of people out there looking at nasty pictures, and they might say their time's better spent going after people who are actually doing nasty things.

I would have called them, though, simply to cover my own butt.
(I probably would have called in advance just to ask what they thought I should do.) If someone pulls that computer for evidence, there's no difference between what the other guy had looked at and what I'd looked at except the reasons we both looked at it. It might be nice to know the cops are aware of your reasons before anything Pete Townsend-like can happen to you. Then again, talking to them might actually provoke them, in which case I'd make sure I had proof the library staff had asked me to look.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 09:43 AM

Whoa dudes! GregF hasn't jumped in and called anyone "puss pocket" or "asshole" yet!

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 09:35 AM

I'd report the website as questionable. Will you tell us what you did, eventually?

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 09:33 AM

I would report it - while *THIS* time and site may have been "harmless"...At least the proper authorities can keep a weather eye out.

Subject: RE: BS: What would you do?
From: kendall
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 09:14 AM

I would inform the police. These nut cases belong behind bars. I am, of course, speaking as a retired law man, and that is sometimes at loggerheads with my liberal philosophy.

Subject: BS: What would you do?
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Jul 03 - 08:23 AM

When I went to work yesterday, it was reported to me that on Saturday a man, an adult, had been discovered using one of the library's public computers to look at websites of naked children. This being a violation of the "Acceptable Use" policy of the library, he was asked to leave and did so without complaint.

The staff asked me to check out the websites and I did so. While the sites claimed that the material wasn't pornographic as defined in the United States Code, the URLs ("Lolita" was used in two of the four names) were fairly descriptive. I didn't see any sexual acts involving children, but then I didn't explore very deeply and viewed only some of the free pictures.

The pictures were of naked children, as evidenced by the physical development shown in the photographs. My guess as to their ages would be 12 and under; I do not remember seeing any photos of boys and girls together.

Because I'm interested in the discussion I won't tell you what *I* decided but:

Would *you* inform the police? Why or why not?