Why "hits" are not websites and why "porn" is not porn

(Greensboro, NC) From the Public Library's logs, the following were identified by the content throttling software as porn hits.

...and scripting files like this, a JavaScript file the user does not see but that is delivered to the user's computer to control some function of the web page behind the scenes:

Takeaway:

1. Filters identify and log things as porn that are not porn.
   
2. Filters count and log as "hits" not just web pages but all of the components that combine to construct a web page, like those above. "Hits" do not equal web pages or web sites any more than any of the items above are websites or web pages.

Pornish? Not really.

(Greensboro, NC) What does the library's internet access control software identify as porn? Here are some from one recent afternoon/evening:

http://yumyummagazine.com/index.html
http://jetpayday.com/?sub=19139
http://www.lazombie.com/matrice.swf
http://carbackgroundwallpapers.com/images/britney_spears.jpeg
http://carbackgroundwallpapers.com/images/5.gif
http://media1.keepbusy.net/content/epic-combo.swf
http://greensboro.craigslist.org/w4m/
http://truongton.net/forum/picture.php?albumid=10471&pictureid=138331

"Porn's" greatest hits

[Update: Some items flagged by the library' system as porn that are not porn.]

(Greensboro, NC) In response to a records request, I have received a report from the public library generated by their Cymphonix internet filtering system.* It reports items ("hits") throttled as porn on library computers from 12:29 P.M. to 8:49 P.M on August 23rd, 2010. It shows why it is disingenuous to report these items as counting "porn site visits."

Prodded by a previous report from the library, some local bloggers confused internet "hits" with site "visits" even though the library's report cautioned that a single web page may account for multiple hits and that counting the hits was not the same as counting visits. Tony Wilkins acknowledged the misinterpretation. Joe Guarino repeated the error without correction, twice.

With this file, we can see for ourselves what a number reporting "hits" actually reports. Scroll through the log and you will see multiple image files (extensions of gif, jpg and jpeg),  icon files (ico), formatting files (css) and scripting files (js). These are in addition to and separate from the entries for web pages (html files) but they load as components of a web page and get counted as individual items -- hits. These are the items that, as the library initially explained in their report, result in multiple hits being reported for a single web page. So, while this list shows 500 hits, it should be comprehensible to the rational mind that these are not 500 "visits"or even "pages."

* The library is working with the vendor, I am told, to figure out why the system is failing to report more than five hundred items but, for now, the available log is substantially instructive.

[The items in the log file are in reverse chronological order. ]
8/23/2010 Greensboro Library throttled internet hits

Sanctimonious bullshit

(Greensboro, NC) Joe Guarino continues to wag his scolding finger at people who do not bow to his moralizing. His new gig is to accuse people who dare to think about internet access at the public library with any depth or complexity as "relativists." This time his target is City Council representative Zack Matheny.

In typical Guarino fashion, he impugns Matheny's character through innuendo then levels his indictment:

"Matheny's posited insistence that proposing filters at public libraries is not a 'black and white issue' is a statement that smacks of relativism."

It is condemnable "relativism," according to Joe, because Matheny's proposals would fail to completely stop people from viewing porn at the library. But here's the thing, Joe's preferred solution of mandatory "porn" filters on all computers would also fail to completely stop people from viewing porn. Both options are "relativistic." 

"Porn" filters are imperfect and defeatable and, as such, would still allow people to engage in the practices Joe wants to stop. The difference between porn filters and other options is the answer to the question of to whom do we give responsibility for imperfect options? Joe would bestow responsibility on the imperfect policing of a corporation that also blocks legitimate content, others would give responsibility to users of the library and library staff. 

The only "absolute" means of prohibiting anybody from ever viewing sexually explicit content on a library computer is to remove the computers. By not advocating for the absolute solution, Joe places himself among the "relativists" -- which makes his self-righteous moralizing accusations a pile of sanctimonious bullshit.

Porn czar gone wild

(Greensboro, NC) There is a world of difference between spirited debate and an unhinged, mendacious and hysterical attack. Joe Guarino turns to the later in writing about Greensboro's "porn debate." In his frighening screed, he

• Suggests library employees should be arrested for content a patron accessed on a computer.
  
• Repeated a falsity about the number of "visits" to "porn" sites at the library even after his previous use of the number was demonstrated to him to be in error.
  
• Uses innuendo to impugn a reporter by implying that her husband has an immoral "worldview."
  
• Ascribed, with no uncertainty, religious hostility to local media institutions with only his own suspicion as self-enforcing evidence.
  
• So badly distorts what he presents as facts, that in some cases they are, in reality, the opposite of what he says.
  
• Casts judgment on those public officials who rejected knee-jerk reactions and voted for a calmer approach as "amoral." (While, hypocritically, elsewhere quoting Matthew 7:1 from the Bible)

This is extremism at its worst. I hope our decision makers are paying attention. Is this the kind of "morality" around which we will shape public policy? Surely not.

Creating a safe and welcoming environment

(Greensboro, NC) OK, let's get real. If, as has been asserted, the reason for putting filters that block access to "porn" websites on public library computers is to create a safe and welcoming environment, especially for children -- to protect their and sensitive adults' wandering eyes from the inadvertent viewing of harmful or upsetting material, then shouldn't we also block access to extreme videos?

Here is a video that shows people being burned alive in Kenya as punishment for "witchcraft." (Take this warning seriously, it is extremely graphic.)

Here is a video of people holding up freshly severed human heads. (Very graphic.)

Here is a video of a mentally unstable man electrocuting himself on a power line. (Very graphic.)

Here is a video of the bloody corpses of a family on the road after an accident, including a child lying in his own blood. (Very graphic)

Here is a video that shows abortions. (Very graphic)

All of these are greatly disturbing, even to adults. If we are going to block access to porn to protect people, is not this kind of stuff even more injurious to children and adults alike? Should we not also block these kinds of extreme videos?

More exaggerated numbers on porn at the public library

(Greensboro, NC) First there was Greensboro City Council representative Danny Thompson's exaggerated stack of porn-viewing incident reports at the Greensboro Central Public Library; now an anonymous source feeds local blogger Tony Wilkins a description of findings of a report prepared for city staff and council and Tony writes about it. His headline:

Over 700 Pornographic Visits PER DAY

Local blogger Joe Guarino follows with a post inspired by Tony in which Joe describes "700 attempted visits per day." Naturally, several commenters for whom this is just what they wanted to hear cheer the "findings" without question. No question of why the sources would want to hide anonymously behind Tony's skirt and no questions of whether or not the report actually substantiates what the anonymous source conveyed to Tony.

I like Tony. He's a good guy in a lot of ways, but that doesn't matter much here. Facts are facts and, were I him, I would be furious at my sources for making me the public face of a gross misrepresentation.

I have obtained the report and there were not 700 visits to pornographic web sites per day. As I explained at Ed Cone's blog (in response to a post by Tony), there is proper terminology to describe what log files record about internet browsing. "Hits" and "page views" are different things. A single page view will generate multiple hits The distinction between these terms is not unimportant jargon. It is key to understanding what the data means. Interchanging hits with visits is simply to misreport the data.

So should we make allowances for Tony's sources not knowing the difference? No. This was clearly explained in the report itself. Somewhere between its reading by Tony's sources and its characterization on Tony's blog, someone decided to ignore or hide this, from the report:

Individual web pages usually count as multiple or even dozens of web hits.  (for example a site that we reviewed counted as about 50 hits)

and this...

[A]ny toolbars, images, advertisements, directional buttons, etc. that exist on a single page count as separate hits.  For example, a web page that contains 100 thumbnail images will actually count as over 100 web hits because each of the thumbnails count as unique hits.

Twice now we have been asked to evaluate the nature of the "porn problem" with intentionally exaggerated data.

Here is the report:

Greensboro Public Library Internet Usage Statistics

Porno Nanny

Matheny & Young. Good question, right answer

(Greensboro, NC) During the discussion about putting "porn" filters on library computers at last night's city council meeting, representative Zack Matheny asked a good question of city manager Rashad Young. "There is a straight and correct answer," I was thinking to myself. Young delivered it precisely.

Opposite day at News14

Well, no.

Q&A with Danny Thompson on library porn filters

Shortly after Greensboro City Council person Danny Thompson made his surprise motion to install content filters on public library computers, I sent him the following:

Dear Honorable Council Representative Thompson,

At the August 2, 2010 meeting of the Greensboro City Council, you said, referring to the incident reports you had, "A number of them, as I said, involve people viewing pornographic websites at our Greensboro public library."

Questions:

1. How many of the incident reports were related to the viewing of objectionable material on computers?
2. How do you define "pornographic websites"?
3. Why did you not put this on the agenda so that there could be public comment?

Thanks in advance,

Yours,
Roch

I originally sent these questions on August 7th. After receiving no reply, I sent them three more times for a total of four, two to Thompson's email address and two through the contact form on the City Council web page.

Thompson has not answered.
 

Porn banned in Charlotte allowed in Greensboro libraries.

What do "porn" filters filter? I asked blogger and former Greensboro resident, now living in Charlotte, Matt Comer to test the filters at a Charlotte-Mecklenberg library. He reports that the library's filters blocked access to:

• About.com:  The 6 Secrets of Gay Anal Sex, What You Should Know and What You Should Look Out For
• AMC Filmsite: History of Sex in Cinema: The Greatest and Most Influential Sexual Films and Scenes
• Carolina Foothills Resort: Nudist resort and campground located in Chesnee, South Carolina

No matter what you may think of the subject matter, click on any of the links above and you'll see they are not obscene. Nor are they porn by any stretch of the imagination, yet, intentional or not, these are among the types of information that will get blocked by the efforts of those who want to software-block "porn" in Greensboro libraries.

The Fire Storm

Library internet filtering recommendations for City Council

(Greensboro, NC)

GPL respectfully asks the Council to consider a total computer management program which will filter Internet access for all children and for those adults who choose filtering, but will allow the possibility of appropriate, legally-mandated access for responsible adult customers who choose unfiltered access.

 This from the filtering recommendations city staff has come up with for City Council.
Library Internet Filtering Recommendation for City Council

A librarian on filters

I’m the Digital Futures Manager for the San Jose Public Library. A couple of years ago, a filtering challenge was brought by one of our city council members to the library. We were told to filter, we said no, and we embarked upon an extensive study about the effectiveness of filters, which you can find at: http://www.sjlibrary.org/about/sjpl/commission/agen0208_report.pdf. The overall results? Internet filtering software **does not work**. [More]

Danny Thompson exaggerates with his big stack

At the August 2nd, 2010 meeting of the Greensboro City Council, member Danny Thompson said he wanted to discuss "Disturbing things that go on at the public library."  He held up a thick stack of papers and said:

"More than a hundred incidences that go in the public library... Many of them, a great majority of them, and I have, this right here are the incident reports of anything from indecent behavior to looking at inappropriate websites. These are just six months of this year at just the downtown Greensboro public library."

Thompson then proceeded to make a motion that "We institute blocking software devices on our public library computers whereby access is denied and not able to be accessed." (video, 01:48:50)

The News & Record dutifully regurgitated Thompson's claims of what was in his stack of papers without checking it out. So I did.

I requested the incident reports. I received the Lankford Protective Services incident reports through June, 2010. Here's how they break down:

39 sleeping
28 disorderly conduct/fighting/assault
21 viewing inappropriate sites*/pornography/indecent behavior at computer
[As the News & Record's editor John Robinson correctly notes, only one of these involved a minor possibly being exposed to inappropriate content.]
16 stolen/lost items
13 trespassing/loitering/panhandling
12 eating
10 wanted persons
9 drug/alcohol
8 indecent behavior not at a computer
6 skipping school/runaway/missing person
5 patron complaints
5 bathing/shaving
4 other
3 medical
3 vandalism
3 rules violations
2 verbal altercations
2 moving furniture
1 surveillance of a man with "big loops in ears" participating in Food not Bombs feeding of the hungry.

To bring the obvious to your attention, had Thompson wanted to provide accurate information to his constituents, he would not have waved a stack of 190 reports, nearly ten times bigger than what he was talking about, as a pretext for his policy proposal. Thompson resorted to exaggeration and deception to justify his misguided and overreaching proposal. Doing so was misleading and contemptuous of the voters.

[* I am, as of yet, unable to find any information about what guidelines are used to determine if a site is inappropriate.]