View the EDTECH Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in EDTECH's March 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in EDTECH's March 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the EDTECH home page.
Hello Nancy, and thanks for the thorough reply! My students are adult learners, and I don't have to deal with any of these issues professionally. My interest is based in the cultural implications of this topic. I'm attempting to see the legitimacy of both sides of this discussion. On the one hand, we have "those who promote administrator control of filtering." Liability doesn't only mean "legal action." What about negative press? "Second grade student accesses hardcore porn in classroom." The impact of this sort of thing is going to depend heavily on how culturally-conservative the region of the country is where the event took place, but under the right circumstances one headline of that sort, from a single child accessing inappropriate material, would cause more headaches for a school district than I care to think about. In a nation of sensationalist media, worrying about this sort of thing is not irrational. Perhaps this is the sort of thing Jim Beal has to concern himself with, and why he doesn't want to release his control those filters, because *he* is the person who would be called upon to explain how an event like this was allowed to happen? What might the repercussions upon the teacher of that student be? I also don't think it is unreasonable to expect teachers to have lesson plans that include URL's such that a system administrator can review the sites well in advance and provide the needed unlock. I am wondering whether the original question needs to be restated, here...did this conversation start with an educator complaining about lack of blanket authority to unblock sites, or inability to access certain sites that they didn't feel were appropriate to block in the first place? On the other hand, education is meant to prepare our students for facing the world with open eyes and informed minds. From this perspective filtering web content could be looked upon as a fool's errand when we consider the reality of 21st century children. As another commenter has already rightly observed: children *will* get their hands on this material, and arguably sooner rather than later. For better or worse, Wikipedia is one of the first places I go in order to get some basic knowledge on a new subject. I would never cite it, I always take the information with a grain of salt, but 95% of the time the information is a solid basis for figuring out where to do the *solid* research. The best articles are heavy with citations and links to reputable sources, and contributors can be extremely circumspect when it comes to getting the details right because they are passionate about the subject matter. I could also use Wikipedia to provide us all with a dozen offensive images, tailored to be as offensive as possible to the widest possible audience, in perhaps 10 minutes. So - should Wikipedia be blocked by school filters to prevent students from stumbling across this material, even if it represents an infinitesimally-small percentage of the total content on the site? Anyone worried about liability issues, legal (even if they don't have to be concerned with such, per Nancy's post) or cultural, would argue yes. As educators, we probably ought to be arguing "No," because Wikipedia is an established aspect of web research which is going nowhere. Therefore, the earlier our students learn to navigate Wikipedia, the better. The same could be said for Google. This is an established part of internet culture. In my circles, anyone who didn't know how to use Google would be looked at like they had three heads. It's almost inconceivable to me that someone wouldn't know how to use this quintessential web tool. I could also use some interesting Google search terms to pull up just as interesting a batch of material for us all to read...so should Google be blocked? Again, I would have to argue "Absolutely not." I find the idea of doing so almost incomprehensible, to be honest. I don't create filters, or know much about how they work. I have no such filters imposed upon me as an Instructional Technologist. I am a local administrator of my own system because I need to be. I can't imagine what it must be like to work under limitations like these. I'd feel positively choked by them; yet I can understand why they might exist for some of you. I would like to hear some specific examples of access requests that were turned down, why the access was requested, and what the justification for denying the request was. I think this would shape the discussion in a meaningful fashion. Best, Dennis -- Dennis C. Scimeca Instructional Technologist Department of Online Teaching and Learning Simmons College School for Health Sciences (617)521-2520 > From: Nancy Willard <nwillard@csriu.org> > > So let's get some things straight on the liability issue. Schools have > statutory immunity if a student accesses material on the Internet through > Section 230 of Computer Decency Act. > > "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated > as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another > information content provider. (2): The term 'interactive computer service' > means any information service, system, or access software provider that > provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer > server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to > the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or > educational institutions." > > OK, admittedly this is very legalistic. But it means that schools do not > have to worry about being sued if a student accidentally or intentionally > accesses objectionable material. Schools have statutory immunity! > > "Oh, but we could lose erate funding." (Could hear that one coming a mile > away.) Not a legitimate fear. The concern that filters might not work > properly and that CIPA may cause liability or a school could jeopardize > its funding was addressed when the FCC enunciated regulations for CIPA: > > "34. A large majority of commenters express concern that there is no > technology protection measure currently available that can successfully > block all visual depictions covered by CIPA. Such commenters seek language > in the certification or elsewhere “designed to protect those who certify > from liability for, or charges of, having made a false statement in the > certification” because available technology may not successfully filter > or block all such depictions. ... We presume Congress did not intend to > penalize recipients that act in good faith and in a reasonable manner to > implement available technology protection measures." 47 CFR 54.520. > > So districts ALSO are not going to lose erate just because some student > accidentally accesses porn. ANd I heard a guy from the FCC at COSN state > quite clearly that the FCC thinks many districts are overfiltering. > > Also, I have been working in this field since 1995. And I pay close > attention (if you have not figured that out ;)). I have NEVER heard of one > case of a lawsuit filed against a district based on the allegation that a > student accidentally or intentionally accessed porn. Further, a couple of > months ago I asked an attorney in the school law section of NSBA if he had > ever heard of a case being filed. He ran a computer check of all of their > records - which includes news reports, not just cases that go to trial. He > was unable to find ANY case ever that has been filed against a district on > this basis. NOT ONE CASE! > > Now here this tech directors: It is far past time to stop using fear of > liability as a rationale to prevent teachers and students from effectively > using the Internet for instructional purposes. > > Do you want to know where schools are most likely to be held liable? Under > the Constitution and various federal laws, as well as state statutes, > schools may not discriminate against students based on race, religion, > national origin, sex (including sexual orientation), and disability. The > operations of a school filter must not prohibit students from accessing > sites in a discriminatory manner. > > Assuming students can access sites based on Christianity, they must also > be able to access sites on Islam, Wicca, and reincarnation. Assuming they > can access sites on human sexuality, they must be able to access sites > based on minority sexual orientations. Often, such sites are blocked in > filtering categories that include material that schools would prefer their > students not access. Can they access these sites at your school? And yes, > there was just a case in Tennessee about this. And I think there will be > more. The ACLU and GLSEN are onto this. > > Nancy > > -- > Nancy Willard, M.S., J.D. > Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use > http://csriu.org > nwillard@csriu.org --- Edtech Archives, posting guidelines and other information are at: http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~edweb Please include your name, email address, and school or professional affiliation in each posting. To unsubscribe send the following command to: LISTSERV@H-NET.MSU.EDU SIGNOFF EDTECH
|