Cambridge library board won't filter internet sites
Kevin Swayze, Cambridge
The four city library branches continue to be the only libraries in Waterloo Region that don't filter pornography on their public internet access computers.
This week, the Cambridge Public Library board rejected calls to install blocking software after staff reported that current blocking technology can hide content that may be legal.
The board, however, directed staff to look at plainly informing parents that offensive websites cannot be blocked when their children log onto public terminals.
The issue will be discussed again at a future library board meeting.
"What's frustrating is our tax dollars are being used to provide pornography," Cindy Watson of Cambridge told the library board Wednesday. She's a public school board trustee but was speaking as a private citizen.
The fact that the library board is willing to continue discussing the issue and better inform parents is a good start, Watson said.
She read a letter from Rob Nickel, a retired Ontario Provincial Police officer, who caught someone downloading pornography on a library computer two months ago while children were standing beside him. Nickel, who lectures police, children and educators about internet safety, had to be in Alberta when the meeting was held this week.
Nickel urged the library to put filters on all children's computers and most adult computers.
A few unfiltered internet computers could be isolated from children where adults could use them, he suggested.
Andy Coutts, president of Guelph-based Netsweeper, said no filtering software is perfect, but it does a good job blocking words, and catches pornographic images 80 per cent of the time.
Don't focus on the technology, he advised the library board. An internet access policy is needed first, then the fine tuning of the available technology.
Greg Hayton, the chief librarian, said the library is already meeting its "due diligence requirement under Canadian law" to prevent downloading of illegal pornography.
Among the steps it has taken: the use of monitor screens, which prevent anybody but the user from seeing what's on a computer, having staff oversee what people view, and requiring users to agree to the library's internet policy.
Putting filters on children's computers would be a "panacea," Hayton said, because there's no evidence of a problem in that area. It would just muddle the issue of adults accessing improper content, something only a handful of people are complaining about, he said.
"That is the appearance of doing something, not the reality," he said.
Hayton said the no-filtering policy is described on computer log-in screens and library card application forms.
Four years ago, the library board reviewed its internet-filtering policy and rejected using the software.
The board also thought that parents would be plainly warned there were no filters, said board member Danika Brown.
"If we're not going to filter, we have to very clearly state it," Brown said of the current notification process.
Meanwhile, Cambridge MPP Gerry Martiniuk continues to push forward with a private member's bill requiring public libraries to use filtering software. He expects the bill will be introduced early next year.
