ethics

Filtering our libraries

Uncategorized

The Australian government wants to help families use the internet safely. Last June they announced they would spend $116.6 million on their Protecting Families Online initiative. A key part of this is $93.3 million to provide free filtering software to families and public libraries.

Yesterday, the Australian Library and Information Association posted a survey for public libraries on the website, explaining that (emphasis theirs):

Libraries that take part in the [free filtering] initiative will be able to access ongoing technical advice from their preferred filter vendor. In addition, general online safety information can be accessed through the NetAlert website at http://www.netalert.net.au/ or via their free information hotline on 1800 880 176.

DCITA has been working with the Australian Library and Information Association with the aim of ensuring the filtering needs of libraries are adequately addressed. The following questionnaire is designed to assist in this process and reflects a collaborative undertaking between DCITA and ALIA.

At best, their position is neutral. This seems at odds with their “advocacy” page about Online Content Regulation, which is quite strongly against filtering and states that:

ALIA supports the basic right of library and information services users to unhindered access to information regardless of format.
…
Filtering software
ALIA does not recommend the use of internet filtering technology in public libraries. Filtering has been shown to vary in its effectiveness, blocking some sites with useful and legal information, while not fully protecting children and others from illegal, objectionable or offensive material.

ALIA urges the Tasmanian government to reverse its decision to introduce filtering software
ALIA wrote to The Tasmanian Minister for Education, The Hon Paula Wreidt MHA, on 15 December 2005 urging her to reverse her decision announced on 10 December 2005 to use filtering software in public libraries and Online Access Centres in Tasmania.

A few things about the government initiative disturb me. This bit of the minister’s press release reminds me of the provisions of the proposed DOPA (Deleting Online Predators) Act in the US, where funding was contingent on libraries regulating who accessed what:

As part of the implementation of this package the National Library of Australia will be required to provide filtering on all of its public access Internet terminals, with the option of disabling the filter when the terminals are being used by adults.

In conjunction with the responsible State, Territory and Local Governments, libraries will be encouraged to mirror the action required of the National Library of Australia and make as many of their computers as possible child-safe.

Five million dollars has been spent on NetAlert, an internet safety education site for families. Some of the information on the website is fine. It even defines unreliable information on the internet – although it doesn’t then suggest how to deal with it. (Pick us, pick us!!!)

The centrepiece to which most pages link is “A Parent’s Guide to Internet Safety“. I couldn’t find a date on the report, but it mentions plans to create and Internet Safety Education Program for Teens in “2005/2006”. Not good enough. The web is evolving too quickly.

If I wanted to have a cheap shot, I could point out the ironic juxtapositon of these two dot points outlining how to keep your teens safe (emphasis mine):

  • Keep the computer in a public area in the home
  • Reinforce safety messages and cyber rules. NetAlert has created house rules and Internet safety contracts to help families create Internet safety strategies. Younger teens in particular should be reminded of the need to protect their privacy

This suggestion from the How Do I Supervise the Internet At Home page, probably doesn’t bug most people, but as someone who is trying to teach my kids critical thinking and to find their own values, it bugs me:

Take an interest in the new sites children are finding online and spend time exploring with them. This will help children retain your values for when they are working alone.

In our house, we do restrict Mr4 and Mr9’s viewing, allowing them each day just one hour of “screen time” (ie. leisure on the PC or in front of a DVD). We are careful about the movies they watch and the books they read – to an extent that they are possibly shocked when they see the type of TV violence that I guess their peers see all the time. I’m still shocked, disturbed and depressed by much violence on the screen, and the disrespect between people shown there. I guess I am trying to get my kids to retain my values in that case.

Would we filter the internet? No. I don’t think that filters work technically. I think having a standardised, nation-wide filter is an invitation to a standardised, nation-wide hack. I want to be open to discuss with my kids what they are seeing and exploring, rather than banning it.

It’s my responsiblity to help them evaluate and learn to use the internet safely. That’s really the crux of my discomfort with filtering in public libraries – it’s shifting the responsibility from parents to the libraries. I’m hypocritical and confused enough with how to help my own kids be safe around the ‘net – I just don’t think we should have responsibility for doing this for other peoples’ kids.

Watch out! Reading books can kill you.

Uncategorized

….if they tell you how to kill yourself.

BACKGROUND

Australia’s Federal Attorney General is appealing a decision by the Office of Film and Literature Classification to allow the sale in Australia of Philip Nitshke‘s new book, the Peaceful Pill Handbook.

Dr Nitschke is a prominent voluntary euthanasia campaigner notorious for inventing the “suicide machine“. This includes software to ensure voluntary consent from a terminally ill patient and then allow self administered lethal injection. He has been working toward finding a “mix it yourself” cocktail of drugs to create a “peaceful pill”, which can be used to end life.

The book, which looks like it has very specific factual information about means of death, is being sold online through Exit International: a peaceful death is everyone’s right.

According to Exit,

In December 2006, the Office of Film and Literature Classification decided to provide The Peaceful Pill Handbook with a ‘Restricted Class 1’ Classification. This meant that althought the book was still a Prohibited Import and subject to seizure by Customs – the book could be published and distributed in Australia under strict controls.

The International Edition, which is for sale in US and Canada is in its third print run. He again works with Dr Fiona Stewart, who co-authored his earlier book: “Killing me softly” voluntary euthanasia and the road to the Peaceful Pill, available through Amazon.

MY DILEMMA

I’m a philosophy subject librarian in a university that teaches an Ethics program, so I’m asking myself whether I’d recommend it for our shelves. My cop-out answer is that like all purchases, I’d check with the course controller, and then if I was still unsure, I’d ask my supervisor. OK – but what do I REALLY think?

CON

Our university is full of people in a turbulent time of their lives. Young males have the highest rate of suicide, and they make up a high proportion of our students. I know that traditional Australian media usually don’t report suicides (murder/suicides excepted) in fear of copy cat deaths. Maybe a book like Nitschke’s could be used for murder as well as suicide?

PRO

I believe part of my job involves protecting the right of my readers to make up their own minds, by offering all sides of the story – even those I don’t agree with. People are scared of suicide to an extent that they possibly block out signs of likely self harm in others, and this book might create understanding. Nitschke has stated that his position has been influenced by Dr Peter Singer, and this would illustrate a practical extension of the arguments of someone who is required reading by our students.

My mind weighs on the side of the PROs and my gut on the side of the CONs. Given my doubt, I’d purchase the book…we’re not a public library and what else are university libraries for if not to provide greater understanding? (But I wonder how I’d feel if I found it on one of my boy’s bedroom floor?)