Walt at Random

Here’s why I couldn’t predict how many posts I’ll do over the next nine days…

I just read this post by Larry Lessig and watched the 18-minute lecture (with Lessig’s apparently famous one-or-two-word PowerPoint slides, which seem to generally be loved, and which I find I love even less than typical PowerPoints, but that’s another post that’s probably never going to get written…but I digress*).

The post starts out being about COPA being struck down yet again, but then goes into a Lessig recommendation to Congress, having to do with mandatory HTML labeling of “harmful to minors” content.

I’m not going to get into that argument. Comments at the post begin to pick at it; I’d expect that Seth Finkelstein and others will continue to discuss it.

Nope. I’m just going to point out a slide that has two words and one symbol: Very clear, very blatant, and maybe very unintentional at least taken out of context (but there’s no disclaimer later on). At least I assume this stance isn’t intended by a professor at that big private university just a little north of here in Palo Alto.

The slide’s contents?

private = bad

What Lessig is trying to say, I think, is that leaving identification of “harmful to minors” entirely up to private enterprise (filters), in the absence of good legislation, yields bad code. But that’s not quite what it says.

And, capitalist pig though I may be, I’m not quite ready to accept that government regulation is always necessary for good outcomes. Maybe it is in this case; I’m not sure.

---

* If I ever had a tombstone, which I sincerely hope won’t be the case, “but I digress” would be a wonderful epitaph.

See this post for background.

2. Censorware Chronicles ( appeared once this year, in September, although censorware was mentioned in two other issues.

I think this one’s a fait accompli–there just isn’t very much happening. The one lawsuit I’m currently aware of is against a library that’s failing to follow the post-Supreme Court CIPA (that is, not unblocking sites at an adult patron’s request), and thus really has no effect on CIPA. There’s the ongoing DoJ attempt to revive COPA, and that’s interesting, but others are covering that a lot better than I could.
Should I:

1. Drop Censorware Chronicles altogether because my coverage isn’t going anywhere?
2. Try to revive it–and if so, any suggestions for how I can actually add value?

That’s the question. Feel free to answer by attaching a comment or sending me email (waltcrawford at gmail.com).

I haven’t posted about DOPA (Deleting Online Predators Act, another victory for the Congressional Acronym Formation Office) for the same reason I don’t post about most political/congressional issues: Too many other people do it, and they do it a whole lot better than I ever could. And sometimes I’m not even sure as to what tack to take.

While other reasons apply, the last one doesn’t this time. DOPA is a thoroughly bad idea. The 410-to-15 House vote is astonishing. I was hoping I could say “my congressperson Zoe Lofgren was of course one of the sensible 15,” along with Mike Honda of San Jose. Unfortunately, duh, Zoe Lofgren isn’t my congressperson. Anna Eshoo, who damn well should know better, is.

Sure, this legislation was rushed through; that’s the way it is with Bills To Support The GOP’s Fall Agenda–in this case, scaring people to death of all those Online Predators Out To Get Your Kids. As we know, “Protect the children!” as an excuse for overreaching legislation that restricts reasonable liberties is right up there with “There’s a war on!”

For those legislators who paid any attention (and I won’t go there), I’m sure they heard loud and clear that opposition to DOPA would result in loud cries of “Your Congresscritter Encourages Pedophiles and Protects Perverts!” from the hard-line operatives in their district. It’s tough to fight that kind of stuff from the “family” organizations and elsewhere.

The truth–that DOPA potentially makes libraries the least useful place to use the internet, because so much of the internet (probably including this site) would be blocked–involves thought, demonstration, facts. “We must protect the children!” just requires shouting.

Senators have one big advantage: Two-thirds of them are not up for re-election in November. Whether that’s enough of an advantage to overcome the Protect-the-Children-at-All-Costs brigade is another question. I’m guessing, unfortunately, that California’s senators will split on this one–at least I’m hoping that Barbara Boxer knows better.

It’s thoroughly bad legislation. And you can find more about it at all the usual places and some others, so many that I won’t provide links.

Now, back to my usual apolitical stance. Sigh.

It’s the seventyfifth day of 2006, and C&I 6:5 is the seventyfifth issue of Cites & Insights. The special Diamond Anniversary edition is now available for downloading.

The 28-page issue, PDF as always (but also available as one big HTML file) consists of a tiny little Bibs & Blather and a 28-page

Perspectives: Seventyfive Facets–75 brief essays (average 290 words each), mostly new, some old (but most of you haven’t seen them), covering a range of topics.

The PDF is unusually large (about 50% larger than it should be), and I’m not sure why. If the problem continues next month (when a more normal issue should appear), I’ll rebuild the journal template to try to correct the anomaly. For now, well, expect a slow download and slow printing for Page 1; it should be fine after that.

Cites & Insights 5:11, October 2005 is now available for downloading.

I like to think of this as a nice short 20-page issue accompanied by feedback and followups on “Investigating the Biblioblogosphere,” but that brings the actual issue up to 26 pages.

Here’s what’s there–and those who detest PDF can reach each essay separately, in HTML form, from the C&I home page.

• Net Media: Google, Wikis and Media Hacks: Lots on Google (and Yahoo!), less on Wikipedia, Meredith Farkas’ remarkable ALA wiki, and more.
• The Censorware Chronicles: Because it’s been more than a year.
• Perspective: Future Libraries: Dreams, Madness & Reality, 10 Years Later: The “self-review” I promised earlier this year.
• PC Progress, March-September 2005: 30 reviews in a dozen categories.
• Trends & Quick Takes: Five brief essays and five really brief Quicker Takes.
• Followups & Feedback: A summary of what’s been said about “Investigating the Biblioblogosphere,” with some notes on likely changes “If There Is A Next Time”–and a couple of entirely separate items.

Ed Felten has a typically-thoughtful post on the newly-passed Family Movie Act (one section of the mini-omnibus copyright bill just approved) and why it’s not a pro-censorship measure.

I was just finishing the initial draft of a “(C)3″ essay for the next C&I, which includes a discussion of the copyright bill of which FMA is part. While I didn’t go as far as Felten (who calls FMA a pro-free-speech act, since it explicitly allows a form of speech that might otherwise be prohibited), I did conclude that FMA is a good thing–except that I don’t believe it should have been necessary. Note that FMA allows companies to market devices that let people explicitly choose to watch a modified version of a DVD they legally possess, without permanently altering the DVD and with an explicit “This motion picture has been modified…” screen.

Charles W. Bailey Jr. also discusses FMA at his (scoop?) brand-new weblog. Read the comments as well as the post: I take a favorable view of FMA, and Charles responds with a typically-thoughtful commentary (there’s that typically-thoughtful again!).

I have to say that the comments on Ed Felten’s posting are a strangely mixed lot, most of which have in common that they couldn’t be bothered to read the very-short FMA and understand that it’s pretty narrow.

Anyway, I don’t think the discussion will end here. Ed Felten provides thoughtful pro-FMA commentary. Charles provides thoughtful nervous-about-FMA commentary. And I’ll try to synthesize some of this early commentary in the final version of my essay, no thoughtfulness claimed. Watch for it in, oh, 7 to 12 days.

So I guess I am doing some traditional blogging–although I hope to avoid “Neat post here: Read it” echo-chamber posts. (”Heck, Walt, you’re so verbose that would never occur to you anyway.”)

Jessamyn points out an ACLU press release (but I couldn’t open the PDF) about a survey of Rhode Island libraries suggesting that CIPA is being applied in ways that don’t fit the Supreme Court’s reworking of the law: That is, unblocking isn’t being done on request (without explanation for the request) for adult users.

Maybe you’ll have better luck fetching the press release and survey…

There seems little question that a majority of SCOTUS would strike down CIPA if it was impossible to implement filters in the manner described in the decision.

But if some libraries are able to do that, then I’d guess it’s not a question of CIPA’s constitutionality but of how given libraries have chosen to implement filters. In which case, ACLU’s suit will be against the library, not CIPA, and things could get very messy for the library/libraries involved.

Anyway, worth watching! Thanks, Jessamyn.

Update: Seth Finkelstein has confirmed, by asking them, that ACLU does not plan to mount an as-applied challenge to CIPA. More’s the pity.