Network Neutrality's
Increasing Dialogue with Libraries
According to the ALA, "Network Neutrality (or "net" neutrality) is the concept of online non-discrimination. It is the principle that consumers/citizens should be free to get access to - or to provide - the Internet content and services they wish, and that consumer access should not be regulated based on the nature or source of that content or service (ALA.org, 2007)."
Net neutrality is gaining increased attention because of the technological move from dial-up to broadband carriers like cable and DSL. "Common carrier" laws govern phone lines, and so the FCC used to protect Net Neutrality. In 2005, the US Supreme Court ruled, in NCTA v Brand X, that network owners should be allowed to control the content that is passed along their lines (ACLU.org, 2007). This ruling worries the ACLU, the ALA, and other proponents of intellectual freedom.
At the same time, some libraries use filters. Filters inhibit net neutrality. The act of hiring filtering services to limit library consumers' interaction with the internet is different than internet service providors limiting user interaction with the internet, but the two actions tread all-too-similar territory.
The issues concerned with the Net Neutrality debate may play a role in the use of future library filtering techniques. The questions and issues attached to the debate are so new that it is impossible to know how they will affect libraries. But one can assume that librarians' and society's opinion of filtering will change as our understanding of Network Neutrality grows.
The Future of the
Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)
It is clear that the ALA does not agree with CIPA. Although the ALA has failed in the past at convincing the Supreme Court that CIPA is unconstitutional, libraries are certain to keep their eye out for opportunities to further challenge the law in the future.Some libraries have chosen to forego E-Rate funds from the government in order to provide unfiltered access to the internet (wikipedia.org, 2007).
In a cringe-worthy attempt against intellectual freedom, the Deleting Online Predators Act is currently being considered by the Supreme Court. The act intends to extend CIPA's influence over online censorship into the realm of social networking sites like Myspace or Friendster. The decisions of Congress regarding this act will help to predict whether internet filtering will slowly become irrelevant and eventually be regarded as a nuisance of the past, or whether it will continue to build momentum and become an increasingly-utilized censorship tool in libraries (DOPA, 2007).
Future of Filtering Technologies
In the late 1990's, forward-thinking librarians like James Huff were considering alternatives to filtering technologies such as privacy screens on computers. Perhaps the cost of such screens, quoted at $129-199 per monitor in 1999, might have dampered libraries' enthusiasm for the screens in the past (Maxwell, 1999). A quick google search reveals that the current price for privacy screens hovers around $60.
Bill Landau, manager of the Flagstaff Branch Library, expects that filtering software is on the way out, soon to be replaced by privacy screens and other less censorship-laden options. The lack of readily-available material on future technological directions in filtering software suggests that Landau might be right. Technological improvements in privacy screens, on the other hand, are allowing one's computer use to be so obscured that to passers-by, the computer's screen looks black, almost as if the viewer is staring at a blank screen (Landau, 2007).
Screens such as these would solve many of the ethical issues associated with public computer use. Future libraries might replace content filters with screens on adult computers while keeping traditional filters on childrens' computers. They might supplement these measures with policies regarding the viewing of digital material in the library. Technological advancements in software-free filtering options might eventually make filtering software-- and its controversial infringements upon intellectual freedom-- a thing of the past.
Sources
Children's Internet Protection Act. (2007, October 19). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 00:30, November 1, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Children%27s_Internet_Protection_Act&oldid=165719906
Children's Internet Protection Act: FCC Consumer Facts. (2000). Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved October 20, 2007 from http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html.
Common carrier. (2007, October 9). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 00:29, November 1, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_carrier&oldid=163314899
Defend the Internet: Protect Net Neutrality. (2007). ACLU: Free Speech: Internet Censorship. Retrieved 5:30, October 20, 2007, from http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/internet/index.html
H.R. 5319: Deleting Predators Act. (2006). United States Congress. Library of Congress. Retrieved October 31, 2007 from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.5319:
Landau, Bill. (2007). Personal interview.
Maxwell, Nancy. (2001). Alternatives to Filters. Library Technology Reports, 7:2, 48-52. Retrieved October 31, 2007, from http://web.ebscohost.com/.
Network Neutrality. (2007). American Library Association. Retrieved October 20, 2007 from http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/woissues/techinttele/networkneutrality/netneutrality.cfm
Network neutrality. (2007, October 31). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 00:28, November 1, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Network_neutrality&oldid=168393243