David Burt on DOPA library and school filtering bill [fs]

My article last week on the House of Representatives approving DOPA by a =

lopsided 410-15 vote:
http://news.com.com/Chat+rooms+could+face+expulsion/2100-1028_3-6099414.h=
tml

As written, DOPA would cover more than chat rooms and MySpace.com; its=20
category of "social networking sites" includes ones that permit public=20
profiles. Some examples:
The list could include Slashdot, which permits public profiles; Amazon,=20
which allows author profiles and personal lists; and blogs like=20
RedState.com that show public profiles. In addition, many media=20
companies, such as News.com publisher CNET Networks, permit users to=20
create profiles of favorite games and music.

-Declan

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: For Politech: Thoughts on DOPA
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Burt <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]

Hi Declan.

   While I now work at Microsoft on areas unrelated to Internet access=20
and filtering, I thought I'd provde my thoughts on DOPA considering my=20
longtime involvement with CIPA, and filtering and public libraries=20
generally, and because  I=C2=92m a former librarian, filtering activist, =
and=20
filtering company spokesperson.

   I) Legality
   Recall that in the oral arguments on ALA v. U.S., the case that=20
decided CIPA, the American Library Association=C2=92s attorney conceded t=
hat=20
it would likely be legal for a library to filter all chat rooms:

   QUESTION: Why isn't that selective access? I -- we don't want chat=20
rooms. And it's not a total free-for-all, anybody wants to come in and=20
talk. No, we don't want chat rooms.

MR. SMITH: Maybe chat rooms are okay because the question is whether=20
that's a content-based exclusion.
=20
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/02-361.=
pdf

   II) Technical issues
   Chat rooms are typically categorized by filtering companies=20
altogether in one =C2=93Chat=C2=94 category.  Social networking sites are=
 not as=20
clearly categorized, often in categories like =C2=93Personal Pages=C2=94 =
which=20
block Geocities.com, Xanga.com and other sites as well.  The filtering=20
companies would need to fine tune =C2=93Social Networking=C2=94 into a ne=
w=20
category to target this more accurately, and they may already be doing=20
this.  (For example, Myspace.com is classified by SurfControl as=20
=C2=93Personals and Dating=C2=94 http://mtas.surfcontrol.com/mtas/MTAS.as=
p and by=20
SmartFilter as =C2=93Dating/Social=C2=94 http://www.smartfilterwhere.com


   III) Policy issues
   Blocking chat and social networking sites is probably already=20
consistent with most existing school policies.  My recollection from=20
working with schools at N2H2 was that most schools were already blocking =

this stuff before CIPA, so there is likely little impact here.

   Libraries are different, since most libraries do allow users to=20
access social networking and chat sites, though there are certainly some =

that exclude them.  You have to have some concerns about the impact this =

would have on some teens that are struggling with highly personal=20
problems, and using these sites as an outlet.  Many teens don=C2=92t feel=
=20
comfortable talking with peers, school counselors, etc. about a lot of=20
issues, such as sexuality, drug use, abuse, etc., and these websites are =

likely the only outlet many of these kids have to discuss some of this=20
stuff.

   David Burt

_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)