View Single Post
Old 08-20-2013, 03:15 PM   #3
tubemonkey
monkey on the fringe
tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tubemonkey ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
tubemonkey's Avatar
 
Posts: 45,768
Karma: 158733736
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Seattle Metro
Device: Moto E6, Echo Show
Quote:
Digital rights activists raised concerns about the move, fearing that the lists of "banned" sites could be expanded to include pages that should be publicly available.

Prof Ross Anderson, a security expert at Cambridge University, told the BBC that internet filters were "pointless" and that it was "completely inappropriate" to have one in the British Library.

He added: "Everything that is legal should be available over the library's wi-fi network. The only things they should block are the few dozen books against which there are court judgements in the UK.

"One of the functions of deposit libraries is to keep everything, including smut."

The British Library defended its position, saying that it wanted to protect children visiting the building from content "such as pornography and gambling websites".
I totally agree with the good prof. When tax dollars are involved, libraries have no right to censor legal content for adult patrons. I have no problem with protecting children, so libraries need to find solutions that don't infringe upon the rights of adults.
tubemonkey is offline   Reply With Quote