Comments: "CIPA-compliant" library censorware, again

Still seems like you're missing the point.

You think, censorware's bad. You think this is meant to be a way around that, a minimal censorware. The problem is, that won't satisfy the market's needs (librarians' needs). So you object that there's no demand.

This is a misunderstanding. The point is not that censorware is bad. Censorware is good. It provides a library environment which the customers desire.

The problem is that closed-source censorware is bad. It is secretive; it blocks political sites rather than indecent ones. It protects the biases of the creators of the software and keeps them from being exposed.

Felten's proposal doesn't stop censorware or try to show that it is bad. It instead tries to create good censorware, censorware that will better satisfy people's needs. It will not have secrets, it will be open.

It will still block the indecent sites. It will satisfy all the needs of the librarian. It will help to prove that censorware is good and can be better.

Posted by John at June 26, 2003 09:51 PM

If there was a market, why was a government law

In fact, my challenge is: SHOW ME THE MARKET!

With the exception of the reference above, all I see is
many people saying "There should be a market, I say so, it'll happen".

Posted by Seth Finkelstein at June 26, 2003 10:04 PM

You raise an interesting point about child pornography. Given that, as you say, mere possession is a crime, who takes the responsibility for evaluating that portion of the closed source database? It's illegal for them also.

Posted by Tom Haviland at June 27, 2003 04:04 PM