700 Porn Hits Per Day on Greensboro Public Library Computers

Tony Wilkins reports this evening regarding the number of attempted porn hits on Greensboro Public Library (GPL) computers:

Two anonymous sources have confirmed that from July 23 to August 23 over 21,000 visits to pornographic websites occurred at the Greensboro PUBLIC library. Emphasis on PUBLIC.

Over 700 per day.

This data was compiled reportedly because City Manager Rashad Young requested it of library staff.  This amounts to approximately 0.25 million attempted porn hits per year at the GPL.

Various parties were demanding data before agreeing to require the use of filters, and the data is now available.  I don't know what else they could demand at this point.

The relativists on city staff, on the Greensboro City Council and in the local media/blogosphere will attempt to downplay the significance of these numbers.  We are already hearing some rumblings.  There are, for instance, suggestions that one attempted porn visit might generate numerous counted "hits".  In addition, it appears that these numbers do not necessarily reflect porn sites that were actually visited.  When one attempts to visit a porn site at the GPL, the Cymphonix system slows down the process of browsing considerably.  Every attempt will not result in a porn site viewed.

But if the relativists use these arguments-- and similar ones-- to diminish the signifance of the numbers generated, I only have one reply.  Why bother generating the statistics in the first place?  If the Cymphonix system cannot generate true statistics of porn sites viewed, then why did the geniuses on the City Council demand these statistics?  And why were the media and blogosphere voices all applauding the call for numbers?

Another ploy will be to demonstrate that the 700 attempted visits per day is but a small percentage of the total websites browsed at the library.  But that does not diminish the significance of such a large number of porn sites potentially being viewed.  If the library customer seeking porn is patient, he will view porn-- and it might be child pornography.

The Cymphonix system slows browsing as noted above.  But the degree to which the slowing occurs depends on the nature of the site.  It will slow video the most.  Audio is slowed to a lesser extent than video.  Then comes pictures.  Plain text is dead last.   So the order of slowing, from greatest to least, is video, audio, picture, text.  A porn site with pictures only will not be slowed nearly as much as a site that has video.

But the process of slowing has its costs.  Recall that much ballyhoo has been made over the difficulty library customers would encounter getting information about breast cancer if a filter were in place.  But under the Sandy Neerman/ Steve Allen Cymphonix system, the person seeking information about breast cancer might face very frustrating delays.  Imagine if there is a video on the site demonstrating a breast self-exam.  The site would be very slow to load!

So what is the cost of slowing porn sites using the Cymphonix system?  The cost is to slow sites that are legitimate-- including some of which have been used politically to oppose filters.  The cost is to markedly diminish the level of service legitimate customers receive from the library's internet capabilities.

In any event, the burden is now on the relativists and the nihilists to demonstrate why filters are not appropriate, in view of the fact that we now have 700 attempted porn hits per day; and in view of the fact that breast cancer sites and many others are currently being slowed inappropriately by the Cymphonix system.

Comments

[bubba]

As you suggested, they will find some way to marginalize the unfavorable information in their continuing attempt to keeping porn available.

We are sure to hear even more of their blowhard rhetoric and absurd babble that we've had to endure here recently.

[Roch101]

Tony says it was 700 sites. You say it is 700 hits. Which is it?

[Jim Langer]

If confirmed, that is just crazy. Time for filters that can be quickly unblocked with legit request.

[Jim Langer]

Which goes to show what a sad state human brains have reached. Actually, it seems like there's been no progress since Eve, Adam and the apple. Or Oog.

[Spag]

Joe, they will never admit they were wrong. Especially Cone. He will just shift his position to make it appear that once again, he was right all along. He'll probably say that the numbers were never the issue, the same way he now claims that what Danny Thompson said was never the issue.

[cheripickr]

Jim, whether it turns out to be confirmed or not, you've just set a laudable example for the odious/fiasco filter obstructionists who claim to want to eliminate porn from the library, yet will continue to up any ante they had previously set for their support, as soon as that ante is met. My guess, sadly, is that you will not have many followers. Nice to know you're out there, though.

[Kathy Hartsell]

A customizable dashboard displays at-a-glance recent activity, including a summary of application traffic, bandwidth by user, blocked malware and Web requests. The reports can be emailed to administrators, or extracted in a PDF, Excel or XML file.

A recent conversation with a tech support member at Cymphonix informed me that there is live training, remote connection into the device to demonstrate how to use the device, and tech support available with the hardware and software contract. Her words, “There are plenty of ways to learn how to configure and use the device”. The GPL staff should contact Cymphonix if they need help generating accurate reports or configuring the device to filter (block) the pornography sites.

There are nightly updates applied to the software that determines the rules for the categories that are selected when blocking and shaping websites. Content filters and bandwidth shaping are included with the hardware/software contracts.

As for filtering, the shaping software at the GPL is selecting pages to “shape/slow down” based on a software category setting to shape any pornography website that matches the rules set up in this category selection. This same principle would be used to block (filter) the pornography websites.

If you can shape it, you can block it.

The rules applied to the category that the shaping software uses to throttle the delivery of the page must be working pretty well. Otherwise, the librarians would have reported that they are receiving numerous complaints from people who are unable to do research because of the bandwidth shaping.

Sandy Neerman determined her definition of pornography when she purchased the Cymphonix along with the rules that were written for the software category that "shapes" the sites defined as pornography.

[Doc Alexander]

Hey Roch, how about a straight answer to a straight question: Should people be allowed to download and view child pornography at the Greensboro Public Libraries? Yes or no.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

This just keeps getting better and better (almost as good as the the "Time Out" thread over at Cone's).

For the record, I am officially in love with Cheri.

And my questions still begs. On what planet - in what galaxy far, far away - do some of these people live on?

[jaycee]

700 hits?? MY, what a great service they provide to the citizens. Now we know why Roch and his ilk want to preserve the Greensboro Porn Palace...:)

[cheripickr]

700 per day? Guess what? That's more than the numer of breast cancers diagnosed in the entire country.

[Doc Alexander]

Roch? Hello? You don't need to post one of your long, self-indulgent screeds to show everyone how smart/diverse/tolerant you are. Simple question. Yes or no.

[Roch101]

Doc, Sorry I did not respond to your question between 11:00 PM and 7:50 AM. You have already stated my position on this issue (albeit incorrectly) now you are asking me what it is? Certainly this means that you chose to misstate my position while not knowing what it is. Why would you do that? Why would you say someone has a position then, afterward, turn around and ask them what their position is? Is there any reason not to see that as patently dishonest?

[Spag]

Here is Roch logic and his idea of honesty:

Conservative: Marriage is between one man and one woman + No Constitutional Right to same sex marriage = bigot.

Obama: Marriage is between one man and one woman + No Constitutional Right to same sex marriage = not bigot.

Until Roch can clarify why that is, he has no business complaining about anyone else's logic or honesty.

[bubba]

"He will just shift his position to make it appear that once again, he was right all along."

Of course.

And witness the predicted marginalization/deflection attempts by Roch.

If the subject was not so important, their behavior would be laughable.

[cheripickr]

Roch, Why don't you ignore all your imagined straw men for a second and give a straight answer to an unambiguously straight question? You're making a total fool of yourself in front of everyone. But what else is new?

[Joe Guarino]

As this data becomes more widely available publicly, the next task for the relativists and the nihilists will be to parse it, explain it, slice it and dice it to make it seem insignificant.

Of course, there is a good chance that the News and Record will not even report it.

But the fact remains. They wanted data, and now they apparently have it.

[Roch101]

Tony says it was 700 sites. You say it is 700 hits. Which is it?

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, the text of this post indicates these are attempted hits. This does not mean the sites were necessarily visited.

My understanding is that the Cymphonix system cannot distinguish between attempted hits and actual hits.

I do not think this is a time to parse data, and to make them appear less significant than they are. The anti-filter forces wanted data, and the library is now making it available as best they can. It appears to be time to make some responsible adult decisions.

[Roch101]

I am not asking if these were attempted hits or successful hits. You alternately describe hits and visits. Each has a meaning, they are not interchangeable, I am asking which are you reporting?

I do not think it is time to ignore what the data is reporting in order to exaggerate... again.

[cheripickr]

700 hits, definitely 700 hits -K-mart sucks, Wapner's on at five.

[Mick]

If these are "attempted hits" then wouldnt that mean the system was working? I dont mean this as a yea or nay for the current or future shaping, blocking, filtering, etc.

If these are unsuccesfull attempts then what else can be done beside removing the computers? Perhaps more details will come available. I hope so anyway. If we cant tell the difference between attempts and access we dont really know anything.

[Joe Guarino]

Mick, these are not all unsuccessful attempts. These are apparently successful and unsuccessful attempts in aggregate. The Cymphonix system apparently cannot distinguish between the two.

That is why the demands for data made by the City Council and other parties might turn out to be for naught. And that is why we might be left with the need for adults to make responsible decisions placing primacy upon the protection of minors.

[Stormy]

This whole discussion is being distracted from the central issue. 700 hits, 700 sites, etc. This is a matter of frequency, not substance. The question really is whether or not a tax-supported public library should allow library users to view porn in a public setting. This is the only question of importance, not the frequency with which it occurs. So, the question is do library users have the "right" to use public computers to view porn?

[Joe Guarino]

Of course, Stormy, you are absolutely right. The demand for data was a distraction from the main task that responsible adults are supposed to tackle.

[jaycee]

Hits, schmits; doesn't make any difference. Roch, as usual, will try to distract you from the facts and the issues because he's on the wrong side of it.
At least 700 "times" a day someone from the Greensboro Public Library tries to access porn.
Does the library have an "obligation" to provide access to porn?
If not, why do they do it?
If they are doing it, how can it be stopped?
If the current library leadership doesn't think 700 attempts per day to access porn constitutes a problem, how can we replace the leadership with someone who will address this situation?

[Joe Guarino]

Good questions, Jaycee.

I am afraid that what we are seeing is the residual effects of an overall corrupt worldview that prevailed over Greensboro city government for many years. And that corruption has tentacles that reach into various venues, in various ways.

[Roch101]

"At least 700 "times" a day someone from the Greensboro Public Library tries to access porn." -- Jaycee

That's wrong.

[Brandon Burgess]

"At least 700 "times" a day someone from the Greensboro Public Library tries to access porn."

--Do we have evidence of this?

[Joe Guarino]

No, we don't. We have evidence that the Cymphonix system is registering approximately 700 attempts per day.

[Roch101]

"700 attempts per day."

That is wrong.

[Joe Guarino]

No, it is not, Roch. Some of those registered attempts might be electronic in nature, because a single click and/or visit might register in the Cymphonix system as multiple attempts. The key word is "registered". We do not know the ratio of true attempts to registered electronic attempts.

I had indicated that might be an issue in the original post. And as I predicted, some will use that to make it seem that fixing the problem is less necessary.

[cheripickr]

It's comforting to know that everyone is focusing on the big picture--the confirmation of rampant pornsurfing in the GPL--exceeding everyone's highest predictions, rather who's the closest to knowing the exact number of jelly beans in the jar.

[Roch101]

The report does not indicate that, on average, there were 700 attempts per day by people to access porn sites.

It does report that there were, on average, 700 hits on files at URLs identified as porn by the filter. As the report clearly states, a single web page will generate multiple hits (as a web page is comprised of multiple files).

This page you are looking at now would generate a dozen or so hits as all of the component files of the page are sent to the user: the HTML file, one hit; the image files, eight or so; the javascript files, stylesheet files and xml files, each a hit. So, a dozen "hits" to load this single page. But saying that one view of this page means that it was accessed, viewed or visited a dozen times is wrong.

Understanding what the report is actually reporting is not an attempt to diminish the problem, it is an attempt to understand it accurately and to push back against the intentional efforts to exaggerate the problem.

[Joe Guarino]

No, Roch. My post was fairly clear. Why is it so important to "understand it accurately and to push back"-- when it is now clear that the data set the anti-filter camp was demanding cannot give the information desired?

The reason it is so important is to make it seem that filters are less necessary.

This is the data that the anti-filter camp wanted. Now you have it.

Are we now going to act like adults and do the right thing? Or are we going to continue to try to perpetuate the moral error instigated by Ms. Neerman and the library board?

[Roch101]

Your post said that there were 700 attempted visits to porn sites per day (on average). That is wrong.

I would very much like us to act like adults, that means, in part, not intentionally mischaracterizing information as has been done twice now; it means understanding the terminology and how it applies or avoiding making assessments of it. You are a grown and educated man of science, Dr. Guarino, if anybody should appreciate the precision of terminology, you should.

You conflated hits with visits and, as a result, intentional or not, presented an exaggerated and false representation of what the data actually report. You want to have an adult conversation? I am all for it. Please begin by applying your mind for the purpose of honest elucidation on this report. Understand the difference between hits and visits and acknowledge your error in writing that there were 700 attempted visits.

[Joe Guarino]

Reading my post requires a certain level of comprehension skills, Roch. I think my explanation was entirely clear. Go back and read paragraph 6 through the end of the post, again and again and again.

Adults have responsibilities to create an environment for the healthy, safe, moral upbringing of young people. Adults make modest sacrifices in order to assure that such an environment is created, as best they can.

Utterly refusing to use filters at the GPL is an abdication of adult responsibility. It is a moral error.

[Brandon Burgess]

"The question really is whether or not a tax-supported public library should allow library users to view porn in a public setting."

--It should not; And GPL does not allow this.

[Joe Guarino]

It does allow this by default, Brandon, by using a system that does not filter. Some customers will surf for porn; and will be successful in viewing porn, and getting away with it, because the library does not filter.

This is really not that difficult, folks.

[Roch101]

Joe, "My post was accurate if you skip the parts that were inaccurate" is not very convincing.

You were touting this report when you misunderstood what it reported. Now that your error has been brought to your attention, you are, without acknowledging your misunderstanding, on Tony and Ed's blogs saying that the report is inadequate.

Which is it? Shocking or insufficient?

Never mind. It would be nice though if you would show some good faith every once in a while instead of this intransigent devotion to getting your way, facts be damned. There is no good reason why you could not, and good reasons why you might, simply say, "I misunderstood what the report reported and clearly there are not 700 visits to porn sites as I wrote. Let's continue the discussion with an accurate understanding of the facts."

[L.Flynt]

And to think Roach imagined he was qualified to be mayor. Not even dogcatcher

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, you are misrepresenting what the post says. And as I predicted, my concern is that you are doing so in order to diminish the perceived need for filters. But of course, that was very predictable.

That is your prerogative to do so, but again I urge you to read for comprehension, over and over again.

[Kathy Hartsell]

You are exactly right Joe. It should not matter if the report listed only one site that had been attempted or "shaped". This device is capable of reporting web traffic. The numbers would not show up on the report unless an attempt was made to view a site.

The bottom line is that we need eliminate pornography in the library, whether it is being viewed on the computers purchased by the tax payers or on computers brought in by patrons of the library.
GPL needs to use the technology that is in place and turn on the content filtering. The wireless internet connection should also be governed by the Cymphonix device. Turn off the wireless connection.

GPL staff has no way of determining how many people are viewing pornography on laptops accessing the internet via a wireless connection. Unless, of course a security guard happens to walk by and view the display of the laptop.

Legal presented a document (Attachment for item 25 of the City Council Agenda - last council meeting) that stated in paraphrase… the City may block porn from websites in the library and the librarian is not legally required to allow adults to view porn in the library.

This is an easy problem to fix.

[Joe Guarino]

I agree, Kathy. Thanks for all your research on this topic.

[Roch101]

"Roch, you are misrepresenting what the post says" -- Joe

I am not making any representations, I am, and have been consistently, quoting what you wrote: "700 attempted visits per day." That's not a representation, Joe, those are your own words.

"The bottom line is that we need eliminate pornography in the library" -- Kathy

How do you propose we do that? We both know porn filters do not block all porn, but that is all you propose. You say it is an easy problem to fix, but your solution does not satisfy your bottom line. Are you willing to see a less than perfect solution? Is your bottom line actually something less than the elimination of porn? Do you have some further steps in mind?

[Joe Guarino]

Again, Roch, it is necessary to read for comprehension. It is clear from the context, and from the overall narrative I provided, that this was a reference to what the Cymphonix system is registering as attempted hits. We have had this type of debate many times, on many other issues, and I am really done with respect to this one.

It is also clear that Kathy means she wants to reduce pornography in the library to the greatest extent possible. It is not necessary to remove the sanctions on inappropriate use once filters are put in place, or to discontinue monitoring use. This is not rocket science.

[jaycee]

So, Roch, how many "hits" per day would be acceptable to you?
1--25--699?
Where do YOU draw the line at pornography supplied by taxpayers to pervs?

[Joe Guarino]

Another point I raised in my post:

It appears the Cymphonix software might slow severely the browsing for information on breast cancer and STD's and the like. Is the anti-filter camp in favor of customers who are looking for these items being frustrated and inconvenienced severely because of the current approach? That is the inevitable consequence of their position.

[Roch101]

"It is also clear that Kathy means she wants to reduce pornography in the library to the greatest extent possible." -- Joe

Filters do not reduce pornography to the greatest extent possible.

[Tony Wilkins]

Joe, if you'll notice on page 3 of the report the pornography "category" is listed as the 38th most viewed category and the page stops there. It would be interesting to see how many categories were listed so as to know where pornography ranked overall.