|
|
| MAY 14, 2007 -- A DAY OF UNITY IN ILLINOIS LIBRARIES
Illinois Libraries are invited to participate in some way to demonstrate opposition to HB1727.
Click "Add a message" in the form below to describe how you are participating in the Day of Unity. Be sure to include your name, library and phone number. Thanks for your help.
[Add a message - Illinois Library Day - Search ]
There are now 41 messages in the Day of Unity.
[Newer Messages] [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] [Older Messages]
Viewing messages 16 to 20.
Kathy Berggren
|  |
Matteson Public Library will shut down public Internet terminals. The automated catalog and subscription databases will be available, along with WP workstations. There will be one terminal with blocking software set up at the front desk for educational purposes. Brochures with contact information will be distributed also.
I want to thank the individuals from New Jersey, Florida and Georgia who helped me decide how we would participate in this Unity Day.
Phone: 708-748-443114 May 2007 - Matteson Public Library
|
|
Mike Jackiw
| |
Dear Senators,
Radical individuals have recently decided that "unfettered access to the Internet" translates to "pornography for children." This is 100% false. I have worked in public libraries as a computer technician for the past 18 years and
never once did the library staff of any of the various libraries allow, condone, or support viewing of pornographic materials by any minor and always made sure that anything that was brought to their attention was dealt with. Library staff have worked hard with the parents in their areas to give everyone a balance of freedom of access to information as well as safety.
First, it is a fact that there is no filtering system that works 100% of the time. In fact ALL filters fail to block slang or pornographic words in foreign languages. Filters do not block pornographic emails that such users can subscribe to. Filters do not stop numerous images in general searches (thumbnails).
Second, the fact that the term "obscene" is not at all defined leaves it open to a completely subjective "justice" system based on anyone who finds anything "obscene." What of the great artists works such as Picasso, Cezanne, and others? What about biological research that any patron might find "obscene?"
Third, the bill does a huge disservice to the very people who are trying to push it through in the hopes of protecting children. They will now believe, wrongly, that their children and those of other parents are "safe." This is a complete and utter falsehood.
Last, and most important of all, public libraries serve the greater community of the lower income populace by their very nature of free access to information. Newly arrived immigrants, lower income workers, laid off workers, the struggling single parent, senior citizens...these all depend on public libraries for the ability to have access to the Internet, to the IRS, to learn about their family history (which might end up in some "obscene" areas to some people), to discover information they cannot find easily at home or school (who have parental rights), to study any varied topic, or just to read the latest information. If
this bill passes public libraries will have no way to continue to serve this area of the population properly.
My background in networks and having worked with several libraries puts me in a unique position as I am not a Librarian but I am a technology person and I can assure you that filters are flawed and this bill sets a dangerous and inaccurate precendent. From what I have read from those who support the bill I can tell that they have never actually tried nor worked with filters in a public setting. There is a vast difference between filtering a home computer and filtering a network, of parents allowing access and disallowing it and librarians having to do the same.
So I implore you to please not support HB1727. It was designed to cause libraries to fail, to give parents a completely false sense of security, to encumber libraries financially, to block free access to legitimate information,
and to take away informational access to those people who need it the most.
For every one child that *might* come across something objectionable there are hundreds of thousands who, every day, enjoy the benefits of the library. Bills such as HB1727 are punishing those people. It is like a police officer letting a burgler go and accusing the
homeowner that he shouldn't have displayed his best silverware in the china cabinet.
Please vote against this bill.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Phone: 847-459-410014 May 2007 - Indian Trails Public Library District
|
|
Renee Henry
| |
We couldn't manage downloading the demonstration filter. The knowledge required to do it was beyond that of our small staff. We would have to hire consultants to install the software and to maintain it- even just to download the demonstration!
We will post signs showing the cost and consequences to our library if the legislation passes and I may post out-of-order signs on a third of our computers to help make the point.
Phone: 217-837-241213 May 2007 - Newman Regional Library District
|
|
Tina Williams
| |
The Stickney-Forest View Public Library District believes in the Laws it upholds, especially pertaining to confidentiality, freedom, and censorship. We are putting flyers out at the patron computers and having the staff talk to our patrons about the impact HB1727 will have on our library. We are asking them to contact their Senators.
Here are some of our talking points: This will affect our patrons directly. If the Library is unable to keep up with the financial liability of the filtering software requirements, we might have to shut off the Internet. If the Library filters, you will need to request permission to remove a filter AND have the Librarian determine if the request is within the means of the law to remove the filter. The Library must be in compliance in writing or lose state grant funds, including the state per capita funds; the problem with signing is that it has legal liability incurred by attesting to compliance when filters are not foolproof and therefore do not work in all instances. Money that could have been used towards books or other library materials, will have to go toward the financial liability for the cost of filtering software; the cost of the installation and maintenance costs for that software; and the cost of staff training for the usage and removal of the software, for providing supervision of any minor using an unfiltered computer for homework or other research, and for the removal of software whenever an adult has a legitimate, lawful need for using an unfiltered site.
WHY DON’T WE FILTER?
This comprehensive ban on free access to the Internet would apply to all computers, imposing a threat to all confidentiality that is otherwise protected by law. Filters Don't Work and Provide a False Sense of Security! Study after study has demonstrated that filters consistently block important information on science, health, political, and social issues and regularly allow objectionable material to get through. Filters are Expensive. Paying for filters diverts scarce resources from limited technology budgets. Money that could go to buying more computers, and paying for more reliable and faster Internet access. Typical network installation is $10,000, plus about $3,000 per year. This is enough to buy twenty computers and pay for Internet access. Filters are Inflexible! Filters don't know if the person using the computer is 5, 21, or 65. This "one size fits all" approach treats adults, even senior citizens, like elementary school children. The user doesn't even know what they are being prevented from accessing. We can't expect patrons to ask to unblock computers when they don't know what that particular filter has blocked. Filters are biased! Private companies and groups with commercial, political, or religious agendas design filters to block what THEY find objectionable, including political candidates, social causes, basic health information, and even information on their own product's faults. Filters Hurt the Poor! Less wealthy communities are the most in need of technology because more of their patrons lack these resources at home. This legislation forces less affluent areas to choose between filling this need or spending money just to block access. This Bill is ill-conceived with Five Amendments. It is a moving target, and it does not reflect thoughtful or constructive action to address the problems it seeks to solve.
Phone: 708-749-105412 May 2007 - Stickney-Forest View Public Library District
|
|
Matthew O'Neil
| |
Libraries denying internet access to patrons because they object to pending legislation discredit the profession of librarianship.
To arbitrarily curtail a service your taxpayers pay for and expect to further your political aims is abhorent.
Providing information about proposed legislation is a legitimate function of public libraries. Inconveniencing patrons is not. Those patrons who wish to search for a job, read authoratative information on their medical condition from medlineplus.gov or those that must make a travel reservation or send an important email and rely on the library's services will be upset with your poorly planned political activities.
You disgust me and make me ashamed to be a librarian.
Phone: 727-447-628812 May 2007 - Not a library opinion- my own (Florida)
|
[Newer Messages] [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] [Older Messages]
|