Free Press: "WiFi filters raise worries of city censorship"
Free Press: "WiFi filters raise worries of city censorship"
Banned site result of glitch, Boston official says
By: David Brand
As the city advances its plans to expand wireless Internet service to all of Boston, some website operators and civil liberties advocates say the city-sponsored network is censoring some sites -- but city officials have attributed this to glitches on the network's filter.
Lots of quotes in this piece, including me (accurately):
Anti-censorship activist and server programmer Seth Finkelstein, who maintains a website that provides information about censorship cases, said the site was blocked as the result of an arbitrary "dumb computer program," adding it is likely many less popular sites also get caught in Boston's network filter.
"We only heard about this since BoingBoing is very popular," he said. "What else was banned [but] didn't have the ability to publicize it?"
That point is key - Boing Boing is one of the absolute top blogs, and they have the power to make a media fuss when they're affected. But it's like cockroaches, if you see one of these, it's virtually certain there's many more which are hidden.
There's also been some discussion about the legality of Boston Wireless censorware. I'm not sure anything will come of it all, but it does seem that there's ways to make a good argument against it.
By Seth Finkelstein | posted in censorware , press | on April 26, 2007 11:59 PM (Infothought permalink)
Which voices [that nobody cares about] get heard?"
Ummmmm..... you tell me.
I have had this site blocked when logged on from public places.
Slashdot as well.
Don't worry about "city" censorship. If they are relying on a contract with a 3rd party (to shift the blame to when something goes wrong) the problem is - who is that 3rd party beholden to?
It is the blind reliance on automated tools that is the problem.
If US Fed gov spin doctors and lawyers show up and say block these - but make it look like an accident - it is going to happen.
Hugh - ever read cryptome(.org)?
The big question you should ponder - is will they be able to get a new hosting provider (within the US at least). Someone has muscled Verio and had cryptome's account terminated. The obvious candidates are the same people who like to oversee each and every censorware list - including various TLA's.
Not many people probably care about cryptome but once it is gone it may be hard to get back. Hopefully some companies in the US have the guts to take cash from people and help them to do stuff that is legal.
From the story, Bennett Haselton was quoted as saying: "It is a violation of the First Amendment for the city to block the site on their network."
It is? Which court said that? A quick search reminded me of the Supreme Court's decision of June 23rd, 2003 affirming the right of libraries to use filtering software.
The only place I need wireless access in Boston is in Logan, which technically is in the city, but it's run by MassPort, which has a deal with a for-pay wireless provider. I'd be interested in learning more about that.
I don't understand why they need to block anything. Libraries, with computers accessible to children may be justified in blocking mature content, but how can they possibly deny adults the right to view anything, even stuff less innocuous than Boingboing?
Hugh: That's what too many posts on my blog have been about :-(
tqft: This is why I call the system "private-*ized*" censorship.
Jon: Bennett is not a lawyer. That being said, the 2003 decision relied on, for example, the supposed ability to shut off censorware, which isn't possible here.
Ilya: There are a lot of people in Boston who would make a fuss.