FCC votes to punish Comcast for violating Net Neutrality

A reposted e-mail:

Dear Michael,

The FCC just voted to punish Comcast for violating Net Neutrality

Join the Open Internet Movement

Your hard work is paying off! Just one hour ago, the Federal Communications Commission voted to punish Comcast for violating Net Neutrality and blocking your right to do what you want on the Internet.

This win is yours. Defying every ounce of conventional wisdom in Washington, activists, bloggers, consumer advocates and everyday people have taken on a major corporation and won.

Today's vote at the FCC is also a precedent-setting victory that sends a powerful message to phone and cable companies that blocking access to the Internet will not be tolerated from this time forward.

News of this win is now being covered by every major news outlet as a turning point for Net Neutrality. Many more people are discovering our people-powered movement for a free and open Internet.

We need to capitalize on this momentum to grow the movement and ensure that Net Neutrality is protected on all 21st-century networks. Help us send a message to this Congress -- and the next one:

Join the Internet Freedom Movement: Stand Up and Be Counted

In the past two years, more than 1.6 million of you have already contacted Congress and the FCC. But that's not all. You have sacrificed time and energy speaking out at town meetings, collecting signatures on street corners and on campuses, and spreading the word via blogs, Facebook and house parties.

With your help today, signing this letter and forwarding it to friends, we can increase our ranks to more than 2 million.

Today's FCC victory is a milestone, but our work is far from done. Companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon are continuing to fight Net Neutrality using lobbyists, lawyers and campaign contributions. These special interests should not be allowed to set Internet policy for the nation.

Tell Congress: Keep the Internet Open for Everyone

The Internet's true greatness lies in those of us who use its level playing field to challenge the status quo, create and share new ideas, take part in our democracy and connect with others around the world -- without permission from any gatekeepers.

With your help and commitment, today's win will be just the first of many to protect innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet.

Thank you!

Timothy Karr
Campaign Director
Free Press
www.freepress.net
www.savetheinternet.com

P.S. Help us spread the word about this important victory for Net Neutrality. Tell your friends and join SavetheInternet on Facebook and MySpace.

P.P.S. Want to learn more about this historic ruling by the FCC? Check out these great articles:

1. Historic Victory for Net Neutrality, at SavetheInternet.com

2. Comcast Unleashes the Lap Dogs, at Huffington Post

3. Kevin Martin’s Open Network Manifesto, at the New York Times

4. Adelstein and Copps: Voices at the FCC for a Free and Open Internet, at the Huffington Post

---

Take action on this important campaign at: http://free.convio.net/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=277

Tell your friends about this campaign at: http://free.convio.net/site/Ecard?ecard_id=1161

 

Further proof that filters don't work

Last week I was at the offices of Lincoln Public Schools to present on LibraryThing. During some free time in the lab I wanted to catch up with some online articles I'd been meaning to read. I fired up del.icio.us and started clicking on some recently bookmarked sites. One was titled 60 Photography Links You Can’t Live Without. Here's what I was presented with:

Turns out any site, in this case the blog "Camera Porn" is blocked as being porn. Check the link, it's not porn in the traditional vein. Good to know that these sites are vetted by real live people... Not! I'm guessing science students won't be allowed to look at Space Porn or Astronomy Porn either.

Of Media Equity & Library Reciprocity

I do believe that this is the first blog post I've ever written on request. However David Rothman and I participated in last night's episode of Uncontrolled Vocabulary and during the after show he asked that I funneled some of my "righteous indignation" into a blog post. David is the one who came up with "media equity" and "library reciprocity" which I totally love. So, in exchange for those terms, I write this post. Honestly, I've blogged some of this stuff before (but it's been a few years) and I think it comes across better vocally (listen to the episode, it's story #2 which is about 15 minutes in) than in print but here goes...

Media Equity

Why do so many libraries insist on treating their public-access computers differently from every other type of media in the building. Think about it, anyone can come in off the street, whether they live in your town or not, pay taxes to your library or not, pull any book of the shelf sit down and read it. For audio if they've got a portable player with them they can do the same with CDs and/or tapes. But when it comes to the computers so many libraries require some sort of ID. Maybe a library card, maybe a driver's license.

Why do we have to show ID to get a library card? Well, it's not to track the patron, it's to track the materials that they patron will be removing from the library. If they don't return the item, we want to be able to track it down. Using materials in the library however required no ID, nor should it, ever! But when it comes to those darn computers, we require ID left and right.

Granted, some time management systems require a unique user ID and the library card is a convenient, pre-existing ID that we can reuse. But what about visitors to your town that don't have a local library card? Give them a temp card but don't make proving their ID a requirement for a guest card. What possible purpose could it serve? If you've got a "purpose" for me on this one then my response will be "then why don't you require an ID to use a book in the library?" If a patron isn't removing the resource from the library (wether book, CD, tape, magazine, or computer) what possible legitimate purpose does showing ID serve?

Library Reciprocity

This one is a little harder to explain, especially separately from the media equity issue since that issues typically leads to this one. Anyway... This is the attitude that typically bugs me: "You don't pay taxes here therefore you don't get services." While I understand that in principle, how it's sometimes practiced is what drives me nuts. For example, "if you don't pay taxes here you can't use our computers." But wait, harkening back to media equity, if I don't pay taxes to your library I can still walk in and read a book. Why should I have to pay taxes to your library to check my e-mail on a computer?

Another way to look at it is this: if every single one of your library's tax payers demanded library services tomorrow, your library would collapse. You work off the assumption that not everyone who pays actually receives. Think of me, the outsider, as using the services that one of your tax payers isn't. Ultimately, I'm paying taxes somewhere and maybe one of your locals is currently in my town wanting to use my library's services. Isn't it a wash in the end? (I realize that this is a harder point to agree with from certain points of view.)

I'm not advocating that anyone should be able to check out books from any library anywhere. There's still the traceability of the item to contend with and loaning a book to someone from another state who's just visiting could significantly increase the chance that the book isn't returned. Remember, I'm talking about in-library use.

Lastly, what about tourist meccas that have "so many tourists" that to provide services to all the tourists would "prevent us from providing services to our public"? I've got some trouble with this too. By having this attitude you end up offending the tourists who just want to check their e-mail. Yeah, offend the tourists. Do that enough and they'll stop coming. They stop coming and you loose what they contribute to your local economy, the budget suffers, and the local's taxes go up. (A stretch but I'm trying to make a point here.)

Remember, it's about service. Not service to "your" patrons but to patrons. Firemen and police don't ask for proof of residency and tax payment before offering basic service. Why should libraries?

Thanks for listening. Now all you Uncontrolled Vocabulary people who promised to comment, it's your turn.

Who are we to decide

Continuing the theme of my last post, here's a college library in the UK in which "[u]sing the social networking site in the library is now banned" because "[d]uring peak times students had to queue for up to twenty minutes to get onto a PC in the library last week. Infuriated students were left standing in line watching their fellow students writing on each other’s Facebook walls and ‘poking’ each other." The funniest part is the response from students. Here's a common one:

“It pisses me off,” she said, referring to other students using Facebook. “But then I do the same sometimes.”

In other words, the students get upset if they have to wait yet admit they make other wait. So, the library decided to just ban Facebook since it obviously isn't a "legitimate" use of computers in the library. Oh, IM and gaming on library computers are banned to. "Exeter Students’ Union tried to ban Facebook on campus, but the plan was blocked by addicted undergraduates."

Teaching road safety by banning roads

Another topic I've been on the record with is my feeling that banning a technology (Wikipedia, Google, Social Networking services, Cell phones) as a result of some not using it "correctly" or "appropriately" is short-sighted at best, harmful at worst. This morning a co-worker forwarded me an article which says that the Ohio Education Association has officially "strongly discouraged teachers from using social-networking web sites such as MySpace and Facebook to create personal profiles or communicate with students." Why, because "the dangers of participating in these two sites outweigh the benefits.” [emphasis added]

It seems that a few teachers in Ohio have created seriously inappropriate MySpace profiles which their students had access to. The examples include "one [who] says she’s an 'aggressive freak in bed,' another says she has taken drugs and likes to party, and a third describes his mood as 'dirty'." As a result, no teacher should use these services. Yep, let's take the actions of a few and apply it to everyone. Hey, a few people have hit people with cars, let's ban everyone from cars. Better yet, let's ban roads! That's a great way to teach kids how to drive safely.

Well, one of the commenters to this post pointed out another blog post along these same lines. A Proposal for Banning Pencils was written by Doug Johnson, the Director of Media and Technology for the Mankato Public Schools, back in 2005. Why does he think pencils should be banned?

1. A student might use a pencil to poke out the eye of another student.
2. A student might write a dirty word or, worse yet, a threatening note to another student, with a pencil.
3. One student might have a mechanical pencil, making those with wooden ones feel bad.
4. The pencil might get stolen.
5. Pencils break and need repairing all the time.
6. Kids who have pencils might doodle instead of working on their assignments or listening to the teacher.

His justification? These are the same reasons for banning MP3 players in the classroom:

1. They might get stolen.
2. They make kids who can't afford them feel bad.
3. Kids might listen to them instead of to the teacher.
4. Who knows what kinds of lyrics the kids might be listening to?
5. Kids might listen to test answers.

Read both article and all the comments. Then think about your library's cell phone policy? Is the policy based in the reality of technology today or a knee-jerk reaction to the behavior of a few?

Unintended Consequences of The Social Web

At the Nebraska Library Commission we have a flickr account to which we post photos of NE libraries, and NLC-related events. As we don't post daily, or even weekly some times, we're generally happy to find out that someone has added one of our photos to their favorites.

This morning one of our staff noticed that one of our library photos was added as a favorite by another flickr user. She clicked on the link for that user's photos and was presented with the "this account is not within your safe search settings, do you still wish to see the photos" page and she clicked ok. The photos were, as you may guess, rather pornographic. So, technically, there is a link on one of our pages in flickr to a page that would be considered rather inappropriate to many possibly even offensive.

In flickr one user can block another. By doing so, they can still see your photos but they are not allowed to add any of your photos as favorites thereby removing the link. We have since blocked this user but doing this raised some distinct and important issues in my mind. I asked that we discuss this and here's the two original responses I received from coworkers: (quoted with permission)

There is also the issue of people who don't understand the internet and don't understand that things like this can happen purely by accident, and that we (the NLC) did not have any control over this.  Some of these same people will simply see a state agency linking to a full-on porn site, and nothing else.  I'd hate to be the person who has to take that call.  Or who has to justify the expense to the auditors (NLC has paid for a pro account).

We all know that when people use the internet and tools like flickr, there is no guarantee that they won’t stumble on sites/pictures that are offensive.  But why would we leave a link in our NLC account that would directly lead viewers to something that most would probably agree to be inappropriate for a public forum?  If we want libraries to use Flickr and they see something like this and think it might happen to them and think there is no recourse, I am afraid they will be scared off. 
Social networking sites provide users with tools like privacy settings, blocking capabilities, etc.  so that they can use the services in a way that’s comfortable for them.  What’s wrong with using them?  If we don’t think that’s appropriate, why should we leave this link when there is something we can do about it.

Here is a list of my initial concerns and some additional questions that we're raised when we talked about it verbally:

• Since we're a government agency could this be considered censorship?
  
• If we block this one user, what's to stop up from blocking others and who gets to decide who's blocked and who isn't?
  
• Does allowing this link give any sort of validation to the content of the other user's account even if the system created the link and not us?
  
• Would a link to said content in a blog comment post be any different?
  
• In a Social Web world, do we need to allow for links that we wouldn't create ourselves? Should there be more latitude?
  
• Should these sorts of links be removed out of fear of those that control the money might react badly or should we take a chance and use it as a teaching opportunity?
  
• Does the appearance of the click-through warning page remove us from any perceived liability? Is the warning page irrelevant? What if the user following the link has turned off safe search in their account (as one co-worker had)? Does that change the situation?

Debate on my blog has been lively of late and I'd love to keep it going. So, library-land and other readers, what do you think? How would you handle this situation? Should we have handled it differently and not blocked the user. Please, let us know.

Do your patrons know your WiFi policy?

In my tech support & security workshop I discussed WiFi and why you should offer it in your library. We also talked about basic WiFi security and the dangers of open, unsecured WiFi from the user's point of view. I was asked about policy issues and was able to remember most of what I talked about in my article on the issue published last year in Computers in Libraries. However, I had totally forgotten that that morning when I connected to the open WiFi at the Omaha Public Library I had to click through a short, to the point, yet completely wonderful screen that made me accept their policy. It covers everything. So, for the benefit of yesterday's workshop attendees and for all my other library readers, here it is.

Library break-ins "solved" by Internet filters

I'd decided not to blog about this unique library filtering saga until the story was resolved. Well, it was resolved last week exactly as I predicted. Here's the salient points:

• Library board doesn't install filters. It's been this way for years with no significant complaints.
• Library experiences a series of break-ins.
• Turns out teen boys were breaking into the library to look at porn on the library computers.
• City shuts off library's Internet access.
• Board meets. Agrees to "solve" problem by installing filters on the computers.
• Library gets Internet access back.

There's no two ways about this one folks, the library board caved into the pressure. Ultimately I believe the actual problem, teens committing a crime by breaking into the library, wasn't actually addressed. No article I read about this story mentioned that maybe the building's security needed to be improved. Really, the old library non-filtering policy wasn't the issue since the boys obviously felt the need to break in after hours to view porn. I'm sure that if they felt that they could get away with looking at porn during normal library hours, they would have done so instead of taking the risks involved in the crime they ended up committing.

I've learned something new as a result of this story. It turns out that break-ins can be stopped by porn filters. Go figure.

The feds want ISPs to keep data

The feds are at it again. Data retention seems to be their latest thing. This time they want image-sharing sites to keep data "in case police determine the content is illegal and choose to investigate." Normall this would be something I'd comment on just on principle. However, this quote just makes it way to funny:

"Only universities and libraries would be excluded, one participant said. 'There's a PR concern with including the libraries, so we're not going to include them,' the participant quoted the Justice Department as saying. 'We know we're going to get a pushback, so we're not going to do that.'"

More on porn in Rochester libraries

The Democrat & Chronicle is reporting that the library board as appointed a joint commission to reconsider the policy. Video from the borad meeting is available through the link.

Gamer busted for "borrowing" library WiFi after hours - Engadget

Engadget is reporting the story of someone being hassled by the police for using open WiFi from the library in Palmer, Alaska after the library was closed for the day. No link to an article from a local source is present in the Engadget report. Can anyone confirm or deny this story?

Porn at my hometown library

Yes, folks, it's happening again. Another local TV station has done an "undercover investigation" (video available through the link) to catch people looking at porn in the library. (I grew up in a Rochester suburb and used the library in question regularly so that's why I'm posting this story.) What makes this story extra interesting is that County Executive Maggie Brooks is now threatening to cut $7.5M in funding unless the library changes its policy. The policy is the one that was upheld by the Supreme Court under CIPA in which filters are installed but are turned off for anyone 17 and older without being asked why. (It is not clear whether the library is required to follow CIPA or is just doing it anyway.) Because of this the ACLU has criticized Ms. Brooks stating “What real significant difference is there between denying an adult patron access to these sites and denying patrons access to Catcher in the Rye?” The most interesting part of all this, which isn't mentioned in any of the articles: Ms. Brooks used to be a reporter (even an anchor if I recall correctly) for the TV station that started all this. I smell a setup.