Word rot
Thomas Thurman
So, I was in Cambridge central library today, and wanted to
check something online about a topic I wanted to study. I knew of
a website about it, so I went to the library's public access
terminals and looked it up. The front page had a link to a list of
"ing lists" on the subject.
Odd. Well, this site was a Wiki, so I went in and changed it to
something sensible, saved, came back. No change. Weird. Gave up and
looked for the information I'd came for.
After a bit, I decided to read the online journal of a friend of
mine. He was talking about having received some odd e, and some
others had commented about the strangest e they'd seen recently.
Assuming a) it's not a new trendy way of referring to email, b)
my friend hasn't suddenly started a new career as a dealer and
decided to tell the world, whatever could be going on?
It took me a while to catch on. The library has filtered the word
"mail". Any document containing this word has that word replaced
by a blank. I'm quite staggered at how very very silly this is.
There were other similar examples I ran into in the ten minutes
or so I was there-- I clicked on a link to a document named
something like sexism.html, and was given the page ism.html
instead, which oddly enough didn't exist. Well, that sort of
stupidity is something we've come to expect, but... "mail"?
</rant>
Thomas, wondering whether they'll apply the same principles
to the books
Martin Burchell
[rant snipped]
Martin Burchell
[rant snipped]
> It took me a while to catch on. The library has filtered the word
> "mail". Any document containing this word has that word replaced
> by a blank. I'm quite staggered at how very very silly this is.
>
Sorry if there was a blank reply before this. I accidentally hit the
Post message button.
What I was going to say was I spotted this too. I think the intention
is to stop people from accessing web mail accounts so that you have to
pay for the email facilities upstairs. The filtering approach does
seem a bit heavy-handed.
Martin
Paul Oldham
tj...@thurman.org.uk (Thomas Thurman) growled:
> It took me a while to catch on. The library has filtered the word
> "mail". Any document containing this word has that word replaced
> by a blank. I'm quite staggered at how very very silly this is.
>
> There were other similar examples I ran into in the ten minutes
> or so I was there-- I clicked on a link to a document named
> something like sexism.html, and was given the page ism.html
> instead, which oddly enough didn't exist. Well, that sort of
> stupidity is something we've come to expect, but... "mail"?
I've passed this on to County Council IT, who helped me sort out the library
IT people the last time they decided to try to filter content ... and ended
up libelling Beth and me.
Actually, now here's a thought: can we think of suitable text for a page
which is innocuous when read normally and libellous and/or obscene when read
through their filter.
--
Paul Oldham, Milton villager and telecommuting COBOL hack
The cam.* FAQ ---> http://the-hug.org/paul/camfaq.html
Milton web site -> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
Kelvin Fagan
> > "mail". Any document containing this word has that word replaced
> > by a blank. I'm quite staggered at how very very silly this is.
I had a rant about this sometime ago. What it actually does is stops
you accessing accounts like Hotmail or Pipex NetMail. If you are doing
some reasearch in the public library, it is impossible to email someone
for further information regarding their website. You need to jot down
their email address and go use a computer somewhere else!!!
Kelvin
Thomas Thurman
Oh, I was aware of this policy, and I agree it's counterproductive. What
was a new discovery for me on Saturday was that the _word_ "mail" was
being filtered out (so that "chain mail" would display as "chain").
Perhaps they think you won't be tempted to visit Hotmail if you can't
see the name, but doing this means you can never be sure that the text
you're reading is the text that was served; removing words (especially
without telling the reader that you're doing so) can alter the meaning
of the text. (As in the example I gave: "I got some e this morning...")
Thomas
Steve Slatcher
> I've passed this on to County Council IT, who helped me sort out the library
> IT people the last time they decided to try to filter content ... and ended
> up libelling Beth and me.
It's not only libel the library might have problems with. Some authors
may consider that their Moral Rights have been violated by this atomated
editing of their copyright material. An author could, for example, could claim
that their reputation as a poet has been damaged.
Colin Rosenstiel
(Paul Oldham) wrote:
> In article <lockouts.abs...@transformers.org.uk>,
> tj...@thurman.org.uk (Thomas Thurman) growled:
>
> > It took me a while to catch on. The library has filtered the word
> > "mail". Any document containing this word has that word replaced
> > by a blank. I'm quite staggered at how very very silly this is.
> >
> > There were other similar examples I ran into in the ten minutes
> > or so I was there-- I clicked on a link to a document named
> > something like sexism.html, and was given the page ism.html
> > instead, which oddly enough didn't exist. Well, that sort of
> > stupidity is something we've come to expect, but... "mail"?
>
> I've passed this on to County Council IT, who helped me sort out the
> library IT people the last time they decided to try to filter content
> ... and ended up libelling Beth and me.
>
> Actually, now here's a thought: can we think of suitable text for a
> page which is innocuous when read normally and libellous and/or obscene
> when read through their filter.
Why do I suspect that creating such a page might just undermine one's case
if suing for libel? ;-)
Colin Rosenstiel
Paul Rudin
TT> Thomas, wondering whether they'll apply the same principles to
TT> the books
Exactly, perhaps we should expect them to start taking a pair of
scissors to all the books, removing anything that might be considered
rude.
Why on earth do people attempt this sort of thing?
--
I was in a HOT TUB! I was NORMAL! I was ITALIAN!! I enjoyed th'
EARTHQUAKE!
Tim Fitzmaurice
> Exactly, perhaps we should expect them to start taking a pair of
> scissors to all the books, removing anything that might be considered
> rude.
>
> Why on earth do people attempt this sort of thing?
In an attempt to raise readership levels amongst pubescent boys....any
such bannning behaviour is pretty much guaranteed to have them flocking
over the material.....
Either that or they just dislike Arsenal and Scunthorpe supporters.
Tim
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Paul Oldham
rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) growled:
There is that. ;-)
I was really just trying to warm the creative juices of the vast assembly of
talent here on cam.misc ...
Toby Speight
0> Dave {Reply Address in sig} <URL:mailto:noone$@llondel.org> ("Dave") wrote:
Dave> ... it took the turd out of Saturday, ...
Is that like taking the piss?
Alun Morris
Alun Morris
> > Actually, now here's a thought: can we think of suitable text for a page
> > which is innocuous when read normally and libellous and/or obscene when
> read
> > through their filter.
Fmailucturdk that. It's easier to write gibpissberish that becomes
obsturdcene after gosexing throcrapugh their washitnkbumy bamailstasexrd
filter.
Alpissun
Mark M
news:KKpT7.24043$pU3.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
And they say literature is dead....
David Braben
> tj...@thurman.org.uk (Thomas Thurman) growled:
>
> > It took me a while to catch on. The library has filtered the word
> > "mail". Any document containing this word has that word replaced
> > by a blank. I'm quite staggered at how very very silly this is.
>
> Actually, now here's a thought: can we think of suitable text for a page
> which is innocuous when read normally and libellous and/or obscene when
read
> through their filter.
And great fun was had by all the family...
More to the point, there's bound to be an innocent web page out there
somewhere that maps to a porn site when 'mail' is removed from the URL,
given how much tat there is on the web.
;-)
David
robd69
been asked to put forward some of the reasoning behind the Internet
filtering that we employ.
Two principal reasons lie behind the current situation:
1 - The need for the library service to generate revenue to sustain the
countywide free public Internet access that we currently offer. We have been
fortunate enough to acquire funding for equipment in all of our libraries,
particularly Cambridge Central, over the past few years. However the
increased costs involved in operating this service were not funded. To
offset some of these costs, we have a policy of charging for access to
webmail facilities. Clearly, allowing access to e-mail on free to access
computers would give people no incentive to pay for such services. Blocking
webmail by URLs is very difficult and time consuming hence the keyword
approach we currently employ. I sympathise with those who wish to use e-mail
for information and research purposes (the core intended role for the PCs
anyway) but it is not possible to limit use of webmail to "worthy" purposes.
2 - The need to avoid negative publicity and our duty of care to our younger
visitors. Much of our other filtering is corporate standard but in places we
augment that with extra software when particular issues arise. Here is not
the place to detail individual cases but Cambridge Central suffers as much
attempted misuse of its Internet facilities as any of our other libraries.
It is those persons who continually try to access inappropriate material
that force us to impose such a high level of filtering. It is a sad fact
that one person discovered accessing pornographic or other unacceptable
material via County Council facilities makes the front page of the CEN,
another person being unable to access a mailing list due to heavy filtering
does not. Again I sympathise with those whose genuinely worthy needs are
being denied by those too selfish to think of others but the use of
filtering inevitably precludes being able to please all of the people all of
the time.
The ability to access any Internet materials via a browser (filtering
notwithstanding) is both the greatest attraction and most significant
weakness of the Internet from a public library perspective. Material cannot
be pre-selected by librarians in the same way as the bookstock is chosen.
Please bear this in mind when drawing misplaced book-cutting/Internet
filtering analogies.
It is clear from reading the previous threads in this topic that most of the
contributors will have opposing viewpoints to those I have put forward. But
even if you cannot agree with our stance I hope you at least see the reasons
behind it.
Robert Day
Cambridgeshire Libraries and Information Service
"Not in post the last time Paul Oldham got us sorted out":-)
"Paul Oldham" <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote in message
news:memo.200112...@books.the-hug.org...
Mark Goodge
typed:
>I am employed by Cambridgeshire Libraries and Information Service and have
>been asked to put forward some of the reasoning behind the Internet
>filtering that we employ.
>
>Two principal reasons lie behind the current situation:
>
>1 - The need for the library service to generate revenue to sustain the
>countywide free public Internet access that we currently offer. We have been
>fortunate enough to acquire funding for equipment in all of our libraries,
>particularly Cambridge Central, over the past few years. However the
>increased costs involved in operating this service were not funded. To
>offset some of these costs, we have a policy of charging for access to
>webmail facilities. Clearly, allowing access to e-mail on free to access
>computers would give people no incentive to pay for such services. Blocking
>webmail by URLs is very difficult and time consuming hence the keyword
>approach we currently employ. I sympathise with those who wish to use e-mail
>for information and research purposes (the core intended role for the PCs
>anyway) but it is not possible to limit use of webmail to "worthy" purposes.
The need for funding is a valid problem, but charging for web-based
email - and consequently breaking the functionality of other,
unrelated websites - is a bizarre way of addressing it.
>2 - The need to avoid negative publicity and our duty of care to our younger
>visitors. Much of our other filtering is corporate standard but in places we
>augment that with extra software when particular issues arise. Here is not
>the place to detail individual cases but Cambridge Central suffers as much
>attempted misuse of its Internet facilities as any of our other libraries.
>It is those persons who continually try to access inappropriate material
>that force us to impose such a high level of filtering. It is a sad fact
>that one person discovered accessing pornographic or other unacceptable
>material via County Council facilities makes the front page of the CEN,
>another person being unable to access a mailing list due to heavy filtering
>does not.
So the fear of negative publicity is considered more important than
providing a useful service?
> Again I sympathise with those whose genuinely worthy needs are
>being denied by those too selfish to think of others but the use of
>filtering inevitably precludes being able to please all of the people all of
>the time.
Would it not be possible for the library to ascertain whether the user
is an adult or a child, and enable or disable filtering accordingly?
Or, have some terminals that are for adult use only, with a clear
disclaimer that they use unfiltered access at their own risk.
>The ability to access any Internet materials via a browser (filtering
>notwithstanding) is both the greatest attraction and most significant
>weakness of the Internet from a public library perspective. Material cannot
>be pre-selected by librarians in the same way as the bookstock is chosen.
>Please bear this in mind when drawing misplaced book-cutting/Internet
>filtering analogies.
>
>It is clear from reading the previous threads in this topic that most of the
>contributors will have opposing viewpoints to those I have put forward. But
>even if you cannot agree with our stance I hope you at least see the reasons
>behind it.
I understand the underlying needs that led to the use of filtering. I
don't understand why those needs have been addressed in such an inept
way.
Mark
--
Visit Mark's World at http://www.good-stuff.co.uk/mark/
Tim Ward
news:ba222usp0betlu67r...@4ax.com...
>
> So the fear of negative publicity is considered more important than
> providing a useful service?
Yes, sometimes. Irritating and frustrating, isn't it? But if the negative
publicity results in you not having the job any more you're in an even worse
position to provide a useful service.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Ltd - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Patrick Gosling
Mark Goodge <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
[ the library, and "filtering" problems ]
>Or, have some terminals that are for adult use only, with a clear
>disclaimer that they use unfiltered access at their own risk.
I can see, sadly, a significant proportion of people interpreting
"terminal for adult use only" as "terminal for the dirty mac brigade";
which would probably be detrimental in multiple ways ...
-patrick.
Paul Rudin
RD> I am employed by Cambridgeshire Libraries and Information Service
RD> and have been asked to put forward some of the reasoning behind
RD> the Internet filtering that we employ.
RD> Two principal reasons lie behind the current situation:
RD> 1 - The need for the library service to generate revenue to
RD> sustain the countywide free public Internet access that we
RD> currently offer. We have been fortunate enough to acquire funding
RD> for equipment in all of our libraries, particularly Cambridge
RD> Central, over the past few years. However the increased costs
RD> involved in operating this service were not funded. To offset
RD> some of these costs, we have a policy of charging for access to
RD> webmail facilities. Clearly, allowing access to e-mail on free to
RD> access computers would give people no incentive to pay for such
RD> services. Blocking webmail by URLs is very difficult and time
RD> consuming hence the keyword approach we currently employ. I
RD> sympathise with those who wish to use e-mail for information and
RD> research purposes (the core intended role for the PCs anyway) but
RD> it is not possible to limit use of webmail to "worthy" purposes.
Well, I suggest you abandon your attempts to maximise revenue in this
way. Either provide free access or charge for access. You've probably
spent more money in implementing this filtering policy than you've
gained in additional revenue (if any) flowing from it.
Why do you have apolicy of charging for webmail facilities? Why not
charge for borrowing books instead? Do the book lending service not
involve significant costs? If you feel that you should be charging for
your services surely it makes sense to charge for them in proportion
to the cost of providing them?
I'd have thought that a few PCs with high speed internet connections
and web-browsers installed were rather cheap compared with the
staffing and floor-space costs associated with the book lending
operation?
RD> 2 - The need to avoid negative publicity and our duty of care to
RD> our younger visitors. Much of our other filtering is corporate
RD> standard but in places we augment that with extra software when
RD> particular issues arise. Here is not the place to detail
RD> individual cases but Cambridge Central suffers as much attempted
RD> misuse of its Internet facilities as any of our other libraries.
RD> It is those persons who continually try to access inappropriate
RD> material that force us to impose such a high level of
RD> filtering. It is a sad fact that one person discovered accessing
RD> pornographic or other unacceptable material via County Council
RD> facilities makes the front page of the CEN, another person being
RD> unable to access a mailing list due to heavy filtering does
RD> not. Again I sympathise with those whose genuinely worthy needs
RD> are being denied by those too selfish to think of others but the
RD> use of filtering inevitably precludes being able to please all of
RD> the people all of the time.
You appear to be pandering to the worst instincts of Mail/Express
readers. The world, and consequently the internet, is a complex
place. Our duty of care to young people, such as it is, should involve
preparing them to deal with such complexity.
I guess I don't really agree that's it's your job to decide what is
"unacceptable material". A state funded library should attempt to
maximise people's ability to access information, not try and decide
what information it is "appropriate" for people to access.
RD> The ability to access any Internet materials via a browser
RD> (filtering notwithstanding) is both the greatest attraction and
RD> most significant weakness of the Internet from a public library
RD> perspective. Material cannot be pre-selected by librarians in the
RD> same way as the bookstock is chosen. Please bear this in mind
RD> when drawing misplaced book-cutting/Internet filtering analogies.
I fail to see why book-cutting analogies are "misplaced". You can go
into the library and read pornography (for some not unreasonable
definitions thereof). I can't accept your assertion that ability to
access any material is the most "significant weakness" of the
internet. Since when has the role of a librarian been to act as
censor?
RD> It is clear from reading the previous threads in this topic that
RD> most of the contributors will have opposing viewpoints to those I
RD> have put forward. But even if you cannot agree with our stance I
RD> hope you at least see the reasons behind it.
Not really, but I understand that you'll get flak whatever you do .. :-)
Tim Ward
news:wkk7vi9...@ntlworld.com...
>
> Why not
> charge for borrowing books instead?
He can't do that on account of it being illegal.
Paul Rudin
Tim> "Paul Rudin" <paul....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
Tim> news:wkk7vi9...@ntlworld.com...
>> Why not charge for borrowing books instead?
Tim> He can't do that on account of it being illegal.
Ok, I didn't know that. But I still don't think that this should
mean that the library should charge for the services that it can
charge for.
Simon Morris
>
> "Mark Goodge" <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ba222usp0betlu67r...@4ax.com...
> >
> > So the fear of negative publicity is considered more important than
> > providing a useful service?
>
> Yes, sometimes. Irritating and frustrating, isn't it? But if the negative
> publicity results in you not having the job any more you're in an even worse
> position to provide a useful service.
>
...and now we get closer to the heart of the problem. Who, precisely,
is going to sack librarians because of a headline in the CEN?
S.
Andrew Haylett
> RD> 1 - The need for the library service to generate revenue to
> RD> sustain the countywide free public Internet access that we
> RD> currently offer. We have been fortunate enough to acquire funding
> RD> for equipment in all of our libraries, particularly Cambridge
> RD> Central, over the past few years. However the increased costs
> RD> involved in operating this service were not funded. To offset
> RD> some of these costs, we have a policy of charging for access to
> RD> webmail facilities...
<snip>
> Why do you have apolicy of charging for webmail facilities?...
It seems to me to be reasonable to distinguish between
providing information-related services and personal services
such as email. The latter might tend to turn the library into an
Internet-cafe-without-the-coffee provider. Having said that, probably
a relatively small proportion of people actually use it for mail, so it
might not be worth getting worried about.
Andrew.
Mark Goodge
>
> Paul Rudin <paul....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > Why do you have apolicy of charging for webmail facilities?...
>
> It seems to me to be reasonable to distinguish between
> providing information-related services and personal services
> such as email. The latter might tend to turn the library into an
> Internet-cafe-without-the-coffee provider. Having said that, probably
> a relatively small proportion of people actually use it for mail, so it
> might not be worth getting worried about.
In theory, yes, but in practice it's difficult to make that distinction
on the Internet. A simple example would be a site that requires you to
register in order to gain access, and sends you your password via email.
Such a site would be effectively off-limits to library users.
I think that part of the problem here is that Internet access is very
different to providing a library of books (or even data on an internal
network). If the government wants libraries to provide Internet access,
then I think they need to accept that in doing so they are expanding the
service offered by libraries, rather than trying to shoehorn the
Internet into the traditional library model.
Mark
--
This .sig deliberately left blank
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
Andrew Haylett <a...@primagraphics.co.uk> writes:
> Paul Rudin <paul....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> "RD" == robd69 <rob...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
> > RD> 1 - The need for the library service to generate revenue to
> > RD> sustain the countywide free public Internet access that we
> > RD> currently offer. We have been fortunate enough to acquire funding
> > RD> for equipment in all of our libraries, particularly Cambridge
> > RD> Central, over the past few years. However the increased costs
> > RD> involved in operating this service were not funded. To offset
> > RD> some of these costs, we have a policy of charging for access to
> > RD> webmail facilities...
>
> <snip>
>
>
> It seems to me to be reasonable to distinguish between
> providing information-related services and personal services
> such as email. The latter might tend to turn the library into an
> Internet-cafe-without-the-coffee provider. Having said that, probably
> a relatively small proportion of people actually use it for mail, so it
> might not be worth getting worried about.
I don't understand.
Does "charging for access to webmail facilities" mean changing to get to
any old website where it happens to be the case that you can do email
there? If so, this is ridiculous; you might as well charge (more) for
access to websites with colour pictures or more than 2000 words. It's a
meaningless, and unenforcable, distinction. Not least because it makes not
a jot of difference to what the library and its machines do.
If the library itself provides email facilities (ie. hosting of the
service), charging for that is fine, but going to a website which happens
to let you do email is hardly a "personal services" - it's just the web.
Sounds like managers with no clue wuz here. ;-(
Anyway, how come children are allowed to use the facilities *unsupervised*
at all?
- Huge
Jonathan Larmour
And of course, the screens would have to be hidden so that there was
no possible way a kid could see. Screened off behind a curtain in
little cubicles? I think not.
Jifl
--
Red Hat, Rustat House, Clifton Road, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 (1223) 271062
Maybe this world is another planet's Hell -Aldous Huxley || Opinions==mine
Jonathan Larmour
Mark Goodge <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>A simple example would be a site that requires you to
>register in order to gain access, and sends you your password via email.
>Such a site would be effectively off-limits to library users.
But the reason such sites have that restriction (supplying a valid
e-mail address) is precisely to reduce problems with "anonymous"
and frivolous users.
I don't have an intrinsic problem with libraries charging for
facilities that, if free, would cause people to use the library
as an internet cafe, rather than an information resource. There are
only a finite number of computers.
I do think the way the filtering has been done (to remove the word
mail from every web page) is bizarre. At the very least, removing it
just from URL requests would be less bad (and redirecting such requests
to an appropriate error page). This would be easy to set up with a
caching proxy server like squid.
Better would be just to configure the proxy server not to access the
appropriate sites, i.e. hotmail.com, (mail\.|)yahoo.com/.*mail.*
or similar, etc. I'm sure it can do reverse lookups to prevent access
by IP address, since that would be required for the net nanny type
software.
Jonathan Larmour
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@redxhatx.com> wrote:
>
>Anyway, how come children are allowed to use the facilities *unsupervised*
>at all?
Because yer average parents know so little about computers they wouldn't
know how to[1] supervise their innocent little angels anyway.
Jifl
[1] Or just wouldn't, full stop.
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
jlar...@redhat.com.removethis.invalid (Jonathan Larmour) writes:
> In article <wwtk7vi...@masala.cambridge.redhat.com>,
> Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@redxhatx.com> wrote:
> >
> >Anyway, how come children are allowed to use the facilities *unsupervised*
> >at all?
>
> Because yer average parents know so little about computers they wouldn't
> know how to[1] supervise their innocent little angels anyway.
Which is perfectly fine - what's wrong though is the inference that it's
therefore the library's duty so to do instead.
- Huge
Tim Ward
news:9vsti4$qab$3...@hammerfield.cambridge.redhat.com...
>
> Better would be just to configure the proxy server not to access the
> appropriate sites, i.e. hotmail.com, (mail\.|)yahoo.com/.*mail.*
> or similar, etc. I'm sure it can do reverse lookups to prevent access
> by IP address, since that would be required for the net nanny type
> software.
Too easy to get round. There are too many proxies out there that will
forward your request for you and an IP address filter which only targeted
hotmail et al wouldn't stop these - the admins would have to find and filter
all the proxies as well as just the webmail sites.
(But it still sounds better than removing the word "mail" from displayed
pages! If anyone is having trouble using the Cambridge Accommodation Notice
Board (an obviously useful service to people who haven't got their internet
access from home sorted yet because they haven't got a home yet) from the
library because of this filtering please let me know.)
Paul Oldham
> It took me a while to catch on. The library has filtered the word
> "mail". Any document containing this word has that word replaced
> by a blank. I'm quite staggered at how very very silly this is.
I'm told that among the other words being filtered is "adult"!
In addition the filtering of "sex" meant that some pages on the County
Council web site couldn't be accessed (I'm assuming that this is fixed
now). The bus timetable for the Stagecoach X5 service for example are in
"sex5.doc" ... so the filter changes the hyperlink to "5.doc". D'oh.
Andrew Haylett
> Andrew Haylett <a...@primagraphics.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> It seems to me to be reasonable to distinguish between
>> providing information-related services and personal services
>> such as email. The latter might tend to turn the library into an
>> Internet-cafe-without-the-coffee provider. Having said that, probably
>> a relatively small proportion of people actually use it for mail, so it
>> might not be worth getting worried about.
> I don't understand.
> Does "charging for access to webmail facilities" mean changing to get to
> any old website where it happens to be the case that you can do email
> there? If so, this is ridiculous; you might as well charge (more) for
> access to websites with colour pictures or more than 2000 words. It's a
> meaningless, and unenforcable, distinction. Not least because it makes not
> a jot of difference to what the library and its machines do.
I would understand it to mean simply charging for access to the webmail
service itself, not simply for visiting pages supplied by an ISP that
also happens to provide a webmail service. (I am well aware of the
technical difficulties of implementing such a charge, of course, but
assume that we are talking about principles here.)
> If the library itself provides email facilities (ie. hosting of the
> service), charging for that is fine, but going to a website which happens
> to let you do email is hardly a "personal services" - it's just the web.
Technically, of course, it's "just the web". It's still a different class
of service! You can listen to the radio or watch TV over the "web", but
they are also different classes of service. Now, I don't know whether
the Government has said "All libraries must provide full and unrestricted
Internet access" (in which case where's our shell access? ;-), or whether
they have simply stipulated that provision for using the Internet as an
information resource should be made. However, I can well imagine that
people would be put out if they turned up at the library in an attempt
to do some homework or project research, and found all the terminals
occupied by people picking up business correspondence or downloading porn.
I think we are tending to lose sight of what libraries are actually for...
Andrew.
Mark Goodge
>
> In article <3C21C7DC...@good-stuff.co.uk>,
> Mark Goodge <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >A simple example would be a site that requires you to
> >register in order to gain access, and sends you your password via email.
> >Such a site would be effectively off-limits to library users.
>
> But the reason such sites have that restriction (supplying a valid
> e-mail address) is precisely to reduce problems with "anonymous"
> and frivolous users.
Exactly. My point is that even if you've got a valid email address, you
can't use it to sign up to such a site from a library computer. Suppose
you're in the library researching widgets, and you find a link to a
document archive that has a history of widgets that you'd really like to
read. But the site has a policy of requiring registration, so you fill
in the form, givem them your email address, and then.... you can't
retrieve your password without going home (or to work/college/etc)
first, because the library won't let you get at it via webmail.
This isn't a purely hypothetical problem. A lot of large sites require
registration, and if I was in a library for the purposes of research I
would expect to find sites that I hadn't previously known about. So, by
restricting access to webmail, the library is also restricting access to
any site that uses email as part of the access validation.
> I don't have an intrinsic problem with libraries charging for
> facilities that, if free, would cause people to use the library
> as an internet cafe, rather than an information resource. There are
> only a finite number of computers.
Indeed. Personally, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to have a
small charge for any use of library computers to access the Internet,
not just webmail. This could be discounted for the unemployed, retired,
students, etc, or even have a short free period followed by a charge for
extended use, but trying to charge for access just to certain types of
site isn't going to work properly.
> Better would be just to configure the proxy server not to access the
> appropriate sites, i.e. hotmail.com, (mail\.|)yahoo.com/.*mail.*
> or similar, etc. I'm sure it can do reverse lookups to prevent access
> by IP address, since that would be required for the net nanny type
> software.
I think the problem here is that it would need to be maintained with the
URLs of all possible webmail sites - which includes a lot more than just
the obvious ones like Hotmail. Blocking by keyword is more "reliable",
in this context. It's just that it causes so much collateral damage that
it creates more problems than it solves.
Mike Clark
<URL:mailto:pa...@the-hug.org> wrote:
[snip]
>
> In addition the filtering of "sex" meant that some pages on the County
> Council web site couldn't be accessed (I'm assuming that this is fixed
> now). The bus timetable for the Stagecoach X5 service for example are in
> "sex5.doc" ... so the filter changes the hyperlink to "5.doc". D'oh.
>
Good job we aren't in Sussex or Essex then, otherwise the whole council
might be filtered out!
"I'd like to use the library computers to look up the services offered by
the Sus and Es CCs?
Oh dear there don't appear to be any services listed!"
Mike <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/>
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
Thomas Thurman
> However, I can well imagine that people would be put out if they
> turned up at the library in an attempt to do some homework or project
> research, and found all the terminals occupied by people picking up
> business correspondence or downloading porn. I think we are tending
> to lose sight of what libraries are actually for...
I can well imagine that people would be put out if they turned up at the
library in an attempt to do some homework or project research, and found
people [asleep|smoking|engaging in displays of affection] amongst the
shelves and in the carrels. There are library rules[1] against those,
and they're enforced by having librarians around. This works: humans are
cleverer than computers. It would presumably work for net access as
well.
Meanwhile, I _did_ turn up at the library to do some project research,
but the attempted automated policing of the rules got in the way such
that I could no longer be sure what I was reading was the original text.
Thomas
[1] Well, there are in public libraries whose rulesets I've read. I've
never read Cambridgeshire's.
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
Andrew Haylett <a...@primagraphics.co.uk> writes:
> Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@redxhatx.com> wrote:
> I would understand it to mean simply charging for access to the webmail
> service itself, not simply for visiting pages supplied by an ISP that
> also happens to provide a webmail service. (I am well aware of the
> technical difficulties of implementing such a charge, of course, but
> assume that we are talking about principles here.)
I suppose - I would say the two are both simply "web access", because the
difference between the two exists only at the other end, not locally.
> > If the library itself provides email facilities (ie. hosting of the
> > service), charging for that is fine, but going to a website which happens
> > to let you do email is hardly a "personal services" - it's just the web.
>
> Technically, of course, it's "just the web". It's still a different class
> of service! You can listen to the radio or watch TV over the "web", but
> they are also different classes of service. Now, I don't know whether
> the Government has said "All libraries must provide full and unrestricted
(Me neither.)
> Internet access" (in which case where's our shell access? ;-), or whether
> they have simply stipulated that provision for using the Internet as an
> information resource should be made. However, I can well imagine that
...but I'll bet real money that whatever the Government has said is either
technically meaningless or unimplementable, or if itself correct, incapable
of implementation by libraries' budgets.
> people would be put out if they turned up at the library in an attempt
> to do some homework or project research, and found all the terminals
> occupied by people picking up business correspondence or downloading porn.
Perhaps so. Here's a position: if library access is supposed to be "as an
information resource" then that really means "read only", like the web was
in the early days, wasn't it. So why not disable cookies, java,
javascript, flash, and all that shite? Allow ftp and http access to text
and HTML (but no forms) only? *That*s what I'd call an information
resource. And you wouldn't need any lame filtering, 'cos you can't fill in
your "adult check" or credit card details (just to check you age, of
course) with such a hobbled browser.
> I think we are tending to lose sight of what libraries are actually for...
Poor people? ;-)
- Huge
Mark Ayliffe
news:wwt1yhp...@masala.cambridge.redhat.com...
<...>
> Perhaps so. Here's a position: if library access is supposed to be "as an
> information resource" then that really means "read only", like the web was
> in the early days, wasn't it. So why not disable cookies, java,
> javascript, flash, and all that shite? Allow ftp and http access to text
> and HTML (but no forms) only? *That*s what I'd call an information
> resource. And you wouldn't need any lame filtering, 'cos you can't fill
in
> your "adult check" or credit card details (just to check you age, of
> course) with such a hobbled browser.
Cheap Linux boxes (which one can of course secure easily) using Lynx?
M2
Paul Oldham
(Paul Oldham) growled:
> I'm told that among the other words being filtered is "adult"!
Meanwhile, according to this weeks "Computer Weakly" the mail filtering on
the Hampshire police mail server wouldn't let the Christmas carol organiser
send out a mail which included the words "ding dong merrily on high"
^^^^
The world's gone mad.
Meldrew of Meldreth
<paul....@ntlworld.com> writes
>I guess I don't really agree that's it's your job to decide what is
>"unacceptable material". A state funded library should attempt to
>maximise people's ability to access information, not try and decide
>what information it is "appropriate" for people to access.
Enquiring minds might want to read what the UK Library Association ("the
leading professional body for Librarians and Information Managers") has
to say about filtering:-
http://www.la-hq.org.uk/directory/prof_issues/filter.html
"The Library Association does not endorse the use of filtering software
in libraries. The use of such software is inconsistent with the
commitment or duty of a library or information service to provide all
publicly available information in which its users claim legitimate
interest. Access to information should not be restricted except as
required by law."
and so on... They seem quite convinced of their position.
--
This posting is handtyped from natural materials. Minor blemishes are part of
its character and appeal.
Paul Oldham
(Hugo 'NOx' Tyson) growled:
> Perhaps so. Here's a position: if library access is supposed to be "as an
> information resource" then that really means "read only", like the web was
> in the early days, wasn't it. So why not disable cookies, java,
> javascript, flash, and all that shite? Allow ftp and http access to text
> and HTML (but no forms) only? *That*s what I'd call an information
> resource. And you wouldn't need any lame filtering, 'cos you can't fill
> in your "adult check" or credit card details (just to check you age, of
> course) with such a hobbled browser.
The obvious problem with that is you wouldn't be able to use search engines
or search boxes without HTML forms.
Thomas Thurman
> (Hugo 'NOx' Tyson) growled:
>> [...] Allow ftp and http access to text and HTML (but no forms) only?
> The obvious problem with that is you wouldn't be able to use search engines
> or search boxes without HTML forms.
Mmm, you could just type URLs like http://www.google.com/search?q=wombats
or something... I take your point, though.
T
Jón Fairbairn
> In article <memo.2001122...@books.the-hug.org>, pa...@the-hug.org
> (Paul Oldham) growled:
>
> > I'm told that among the other words being filtered is "adult"!
>
> Meanwhile, according to this weeks "Computer Weakly" the mail filtering on
> the Hampshire police mail server wouldn't let the Christmas carol organiser
> send out a mail which included the words "ding dong merrily on high"
> ^^^^
> The world's gone mad.
Sum wan kneads two learn that it's some antics that mat tar snot
party colour words.
--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fa...@cl.cam.ac.uk
Robert Day
> > >at all?
>
> Which is perfectly fine - what's wrong though is the inference that it's
> therefore the library's duty so to do instead.
>
The library service is currently examining its position regarding
children and their access to the Internet. However, please bear in
mind that staffing levels are such that staff supervision on a regular
basis is not feasible and a number of parents will not or cannot visit
the library with their children. I do not believe we should exclude
these children from the many positive things that Internet access
offers them on the basis of something over which they have no control,
namely their parents behaviour.
Robert
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
Thomas Thurman <tj...@thurman.org.uk> writes:
> Paul Oldham <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote:
> > (Hugo 'NOx' Tyson) growled:
> >> [...] Allow ftp and http access to text and HTML (but no forms) only?
> > The obvious problem with that is you wouldn't be able to use search engines
> > or search boxes without HTML forms.
<blackadder> Bugger. </>
> Mmm, you could just type URLs like http://www.google.com/search?q=wombats
> or something... I take your point, though.
That's what I tend to do on the lamer of our internal bug-tracking
databasen TBH. You know where you are with that. ;-)
Merry Xmas &c, no more from me until January.
- Huge
Andrew Haylett
> ...but I'll bet real money that whatever the Government has said is either
> technically meaningless or unimplementable, or if itself correct, incapable
> of implementation by libraries' budgets.
I'm entirely prepared to believe that.
> Perhaps so. Here's a position: if library access is supposed to be "as an
> information resource" then that really means "read only", like the web was
> in the early days, wasn't it. So why not disable cookies, java,
> javascript, flash, and all that shite? Allow ftp and http access to text
> and HTML (but no forms) only? *That*s what I'd call an information
> resource. And you wouldn't need any lame filtering, 'cos you can't fill in
> your "adult check" or credit card details (just to check you age, of
> course) with such a hobbled browser.
Trouble is, many naff sites nowadays require javascript and/or forms
(in the form of drop-down menus) for navigation. And you'd want to
include PDF. No, I don't think there's an easy technical solution to
make the sort of distinction that they want.
>> I think we are tending to lose sight of what libraries are actually for...
> Poor people? ;-)
Well, most people don't have hundreds of thousands of books at their
personal disposal, so in the traditional model, libraries have catered
for everyone, rich or poor. Internet access is much more ubiquitous
than large personal libraries, so the need for such provision in public
libraries is marginal, and arguably, aimed at the poor, or at least
those who choose not to have personal Internet access, even the easy kind
such as WebTV. If we broaden the concept of library services to cover
a wider concept of public good rather than just information retrieval,
then webmail access for that particular sub-group would be justified.
Andrew.
Robert Day
> > providing information-related services and personal services
> > such as email. The latter might tend to turn the library into an
> > Internet-cafe-without-the-coffee provider. Having said that, probably
> > a relatively small proportion of people actually use it for mail, so it
> > might not be worth getting worried about.
>
> I don't understand.
>
> Does "charging for access to webmail facilities" mean changing to get to
> any old website where it happens to be the case that you can do email
> there? If so, this is ridiculous; you might as well charge (more) for
> access to websites with colour pictures or more than 2000 words. It's a
> meaningless, and unenforcable, distinction. Not least because it makes not
> a jot of difference to what the library and its machines do.
>
> If the library itself provides email facilities (ie. hosting of the
> service), charging for that is fine, but going to a website which happens
> to let you do email is hardly a "personal services" - it's just the web.
>
> Sounds like managers with no clue wuz here. ;-(
Hi, "Manager with no clue" here. All sorts of debates over semantics
could be had here but the bottom line is that the library service
makes webmail sending and receiving facilities easily available for a
fee (and at Lion Yard there is even a cafe next door to this!). A
number of measures are in place on "free" terminals to make such sites
more difficult to access. Unfortunately, as a number of contributors
have pointed out, there are innocent casualties in this approach. Our
service has access to single machines only to implement our own
filtering measures - we do not have access to change the
configurations on any proxies or network-filtering products that the
County Council utilises. Believe me, we are aware of the frustrations
that some of you feel and are working on means of making the filtering
more intelligent and more targetted.
One point that has been overlooked to date in this thread is the heavy
use of Cambridge Central Library by students and tourists,
particularly overseas visitors. Of course, the library has a duty to
provide services for these groups as much as for anyone else. But, our
experience has shown in the past that allowing uncontrolled access to
e-mail, web based or otherwise, does lead to the terminals being
monopolised for this use, to the exclusion of other web services that
are more in line with our core services. This is even the case with
the 50 plus PCs available at Lion Yard.
Finally, do remember that the County Council does have a recognised
feedback and comments procedure at all levels right up to your own
County Council representative. If you feel sufficiently strongly about
the issue then communicating via these channels will ensure your case
is heard more widely than the readership of cam.misc.
Robert Day
ps Was that David "Elite" Braben posting earlier?
Robert Macmillan
Haylett) wrote:
> ...However, I can well imagine that
> people would be put out if they turned up at the library in an attempt
> to do some homework or project research, and found all the terminals
> occupied by people picking up business correspondence or downloading
> porn. I think we are tending to lose sight of what libraries are
> actually for...
Quite right. They're for grannies to get their Mills and Boons, middle
class people to get the stuff free that they could easily pay for and
students to borrow CDs so they can copy them. Business correspondence -
tsk, tsk.
Robert
Patrick Gosling
Paul Oldham <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote:
>The obvious problem with that is you wouldn't be able to use search engines
>or search boxes without HTML forms.
Oh yes you could. Although admittedly, it'd be quite tedious hand-crafting
the relevant URLs. But then again, the facility to do that in general for
many things based on forms suggests that blocking forms is probably not the
most brilliant plan ever ...
-patrick.
Malcolm Gray
"Patrick Gosling" <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:9vt9kj$aae$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
Have they got round to blocking file: URLs, they worked a few years back
when I filled in a feedback form about them.
Malcolm
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
robe...@hotmail.com (Robert Day) writes:
> > Sounds like managers with no clue wuz here. ;-(
>
> Hi, "Manager with no clue" here. All sorts of debates over semantics
Please, nothing personal - but I do think the chain of logic which goes
@) we don't want people to monopolize machines
a) letting people do mail encourages them to monopolize machines
b) we have to make some money somehow
c) so let's charge for mail!
d) but people can do mail on ordinary machines
e) so let's prevent that
f) that's hard to do right, so we look really really lame
g) but (@),(a),(b) mean (c), which requires (e) so we'll do it anyway even
if (f)
is completely bogus. (f) is unacceptable. Full stop. But I can
understand how you have it forced upon you.
> ps Was that David "Elite" Braben posting earlier?
'Spect so.
OO 'til January,
- Huge
robd69
in what the LA have to say on this, or any other, matter. The LA are in the
enviable position of being able to talk of how things should be in
Libraryland without the inconvenience of actually implementing anything or
dealing with customers who will not play by their utopian rules. The LA
don't have to account to "Outraged" of Cambridgeshire either, the person
that writes directly to their MP so that the whole thing gets knocked down
the chain of command and threatens to flatten the person at the bottom who
ends up dealing with it.
OK, so I am dramatising the thing but when I think of the LA I can't help
but see Ivory Towers in my mind's eye. Give them a service to run for a
couple of years and see if they maintain their admittedly laudable stance
then.
As I said, a personal POV but I suspect not too many library staff would
disagree.
Robert Day
"Meldrew of Meldreth" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WIhHx5Rj...@perry.co.uk...
Meldrew of Meldreth
<rob...@ntlworld.com> writes
>Speaking from a purely personal perspective, I wouldn't hold too much faith
>in what the LA have to say on this, or any other, matter. The LA are in the
>enviable position of being able to talk of how things should be in
>Libraryland without the inconvenience of actually implementing anything or
>dealing with customers who will not play by their utopian rules. The LA
>don't have to account to "Outraged" of Cambridgeshire either, the person
>that writes directly to their MP so that the whole thing gets knocked down
>the chain of command and threatens to flatten the person at the bottom who
>ends up dealing with it.
>OK, so I am dramatising the thing but when I think of the LA I can't help
>but see Ivory Towers in my mind's eye. Give them a service to run for a
>couple of years and see if they maintain their admittedly laudable stance
>then.
Far be it from me to stand between a professional in the front line and
an association which purports to represent an agreed view of
professional behaviour.
But I do know that the LA's view is supported within central government
(Department of Culture-etc and DTI) because that's how I originally came
across the information (in my day-job).
In practice, complaints to MPs are first escalated to the civil servants
in the relevant departments, and if Govt policy is being followed it's
very unusual for the MP to take it any further.
Ciaran Byrne
"Paul Oldham" <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote in message
news:memo.2001122...@books.the-hug.org...
> In article <memo.2001122...@books.the-hug.org>, pa...@the-hug.org
> (Paul Oldham) growled:
>
> > I'm told that among the other words being filtered is "adult"!
>
> Meanwhile, according to this weeks "Computer Weakly" the mail filtering on
> the Hampshire police mail server wouldn't let the Christmas carol
organiser
> send out a mail which included the words "ding dong merrily on high"
> ^^^^
> The world's gone mad.
>
<scene>Harry Enfield's Old Gits. Seated with dictionaries</scene>
Yeah. 'Ere's one. Dong.
Ooh, that's a bit fruity. They can't 'ave that.
Nah. Or Dongle. Dunno what it means, but they can't have it.
--
Ciaran Byrne
Steve Slatcher
<rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>Enquiring minds might want to read what the UK Library Association ("the
>leading professional body for Librarians and Information Managers") has
>to say about filtering:-
>
>http://www.la-hq.org.uk/directory/prof_issues/filter.html
>
>"The Library Association does not endorse the use of filtering software
>in libraries. The use of such software is inconsistent with the
>commitment or duty of a library or information service to provide all
>publicly available information in which its users claim legitimate
>interest. Access to information should not be restricted except as
>required by law."
So what does the "except as required by law" mean? Sounds like a
cover-your-bottom clause. I would guess that it would be illegal to
allow access to kiddy-porn for example. How are librarians meant to
deal with legal niceties in their filtering? MPs and newspapers can
be dealt with, maybe with letters from cam.miscers. Legal challenges
might be trickier.
Still not convinced why our Library choses to raise revenue from email
alone. If anyone is desparate enough to need to use a library for
email I think they should be welcome to the service. Or alternatively
charge a more modest fee for all Internet access. If tourists
checking email are a problem it is possible to require proof of
cambridge resisdence? Or is that contrary to some rule or other?
--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher
Tim Ward
>
> But I do know that the LA's view is supported within central government
> (Department of Culture-etc and DTI) because that's how I originally came
> across the information (in my day-job).
Central government has all sorts of views about how local government "ought"
to behave. Some of them are possible to implement in practice, some not (or,
at least, not when local government is not allowed by central government to
spend any money on such implementation).
Alun Morris
> could be had here but the bottom line is that the library service
> makes webmail sending and receiving facilities easily available for a
> fee (and at Lion Yard there is even a cafe next door to this!). A
> number of measures are in place on "free" terminals to make such sites
> more difficult to access.
> Robert Day
>
Removing books from the library without checking out is forbidden. Therefore
the books have a tag and there are sensors at the exit.
Ah-ha, a determined person can get round this by using a foil shielded bag.
We must therefore prohibit the carrying of foil shielded bags and enforce it
with inspections.
Ah ha, a determined person could make an active jamming device instead. We
must therefore install anti-jamming devices and detectors.
Etc. etc.
Alun
Brian Cockburn
jlar...@redhat.com.removethis.invalid (Jonathan Larmour) wrote:
>I do think the way the filtering has been done (to remove the word
>mail from every web page) is bizarre. At the very least, removing it
>just from URL requests would be less bad (and redirecting such requests
>to an appropriate error page). This would be easy to set up with a
>caching proxy server like squid.
>
>Better would be just to configure the proxy server not to access the
>appropriate sites, i.e. hotmail.com, (mail\.|)yahoo.com/.*mail.*
>or similar, etc. I'm sure it can do reverse lookups to prevent access
>by IP address, since that would be required for the net nanny type
>software.
Hi,
Perhaps a solution here is to create a proxy server which proceses
web pages such that the library's filtering is rendered null. That
is if the library filters "mail" and "sex" then expanding those words
in the proxy to "mamailil" and "sesexx" will cause the filter to just
restore the text.
Brian.
.sig
Malcolm Gray
"Brian Cockburn" <brian.cockburn...@lineone.net> wrote in
message news:3c22f9cd...@news.tiscali.co.uk...
I have admit this thread makes we want to try accessing the regular
webmail system I use - I don't think mail occurs anywhere in the URL....
Meldrew of Meldreth
Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> writes
>Central government has all sorts of views about how local government "ought"
>to behave. Some of them are possible to implement in practice, some not (or,
>at least, not when local government is not allowed by central government to
>spend any money on such implementation).
That may well be true, but isn't relevant to the context (which is
people writing to their MPs about unfiltered libraries, and getting a
letter back saying that unfiltered libraries are in fact the preferred
sort, rather than a letter saying the librarian has just been sacked).
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
>
> Speaking from a purely personal perspective, I wouldn't hold too much faith
> in what the LA have to say on this, or any other, matter. The LA are in the
> enviable position of being able to talk of how things should be in
> Libraryland without the inconvenience of actually implementing anything or
> dealing with customers who will not play by their utopian rules. The LA
> don't have to account to "Outraged" of Cambridgeshire either, the person
> that writes directly to their MP so that the whole thing gets knocked down
> the chain of command and threatens to flatten the person at the bottom who
> ends up dealing with it.
> OK, so I am dramatising the thing but when I think of the LA I can't help
> but see Ivory Towers in my mind's eye. Give them a service to run for a
> couple of years and see if they maintain their admittedly laudable stance
> then.
> As I said, a personal POV but I suspect not too many library staff would
> disagree.
I am intrigued to find that an employee of the County Council thinks
that
an MP sits at the top of the chain of command rather than a Councillor.
Perhaps this explains at lot of the shortcomings of the County Officers
- they don't know to whom they are accountable.
Tim Ward
news:3C23344E...@zeus.com...
>
> Perhaps this explains at lot of the shortcomings of the County Officers
> - they don't know to whom they are accountable.
Funny you should say that ... not the first time I've heard that view
expressed (or seen it in action).
John Sullivan
>The obvious problem with that is you wouldn't be able to use search engines
>or search boxes without HTML forms.
Hugo's solution occurred to me too. The problem you mention is an
obvious flaw, but there is a solution.
Configure the proxy to simply reject any POST request with more that
tries to send more than (say) 150 bytes of content. Adjust the number
to taste.
An alternative would be to particularly target POST content containing
email addresses.
Of course, it's not perfect. Some 'legit' pages will still be stopped
and some webmail might get though.
It does have the advantage that if your request gets through you can
be reasonably confident that the content is a complete and accurate
representation of the requested resource. This is (I believe) of
critical importance in this domain.
I'd also say that if a 'normal' page requires more than the arbitrary
cutoff to implement navigation or searches then it's doing something
strange and probably ought to be re-written (not that you'll ever
persuade the author of that.)
Likewise, if an email contains less than the cutoff, including any
quoted text and metadata, they're probably not saying anything
important enough for it to be worth stopping them.
The only other thing I can thing off which prevents this is services
like babelfish. I suspect these are rare enough to add to an
exceptions list on a case-by-case basis.
(Ideally I think this should be policed manually in the same way that
normal library rules are applied. Give the librarians remote-control
off switches and position the screens such that the gist of user
activity is apparent to them.)
John
--
Dead stars still burn
Malcolm Gray
"John Sullivan" <jo...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:J0A*tA...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Paul Oldham <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote:
> >The obvious problem with that is you wouldn't be able to use search
engines
> >or search boxes without HTML forms.
>
> Hugo's solution occurred to me too. The problem you mention is an
> obvious flaw, but there is a solution.
Thinking ont he other side - if the webmil service is
offered over https can any proxy blocking be done
or must it be done on the client?
Malcolm
John Sullivan
>Thinking ont he other side - if the webmil service is
>offered over https can any proxy blocking be done
>or must it be done on the client?
I don't know how https proxies work, but I'd hope the content
encryption would be end-to-end.
Does the free service really want to allow https at all though? https
sounds more like the personal services they want to charge for
accessing, and not the public information services you get for free.
Again, I suspect exceptions (for example subscription journals that
only serve over https) to be rare enough to be easily dealt with
manually.
Malcolm Gray
I don't remember this thread only being about free or public
servers though - I thought an example given was business users,
I know people in Cambridge who work in London and use (their
work) web mail to access their work email from home.
John Sullivan
>I don't remember this thread only being about free or public
>servers though - I thought an example given was business users,
>I know people in Cambridge who work in London and use (their
> work) web mail to access their work email from home.
The solution is to a particular problem of Cambridge central library -
how to effectively but selectively discourage use of webmail
facilities by non-paying library users.
The current solution in use has an (IMHO unacceptably) high level of
collateral damage to the type of internet use the computer facilities
are nominally provided for. The suggested replacement is an attempt to
reduce that.
In my message, for "the free service" read "the free internet access
provided by the Cambridge library", for "get for free" read "you can
access from the library without having to pay the library" and most
other things refer to third-party servers/services that you might want
to access using the library facilities.
Janet McKnight
deprecated, or at least not with pointy sticks]
And lo, on Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:21:35 -0000, David Braben
<dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> did say:
> More to the point, there's bound to be an innocent web page out there
> somewhere that maps to a porn site when 'mail' is removed from the URL,
> given how much tat there is on the web.
On the library computer at my old High School they changed all banned
sites/keywords to "xxx" -- so "www.hotmail.com" became "www.xxx.com". It's
good to see that schools are finally realising that evil web-mail clients
are far more damaging to our youth than HOT GIRL-ON-GIRL ACTION.
Jan x
--
Janet McKnight | http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~janetmck/
"Do I dare / disturb the universe?"
Lesley Mitchell
> On the library computer at my old High School they changed all banned
> sites/keywords to "xxx" -- so "www.hotmail.com" became "www.xxx.com". It's
> good to see that schools are finally realising that evil web-mail clients
> are far more damaging to our youth than HOT GIRL-ON-GIRL ACTION.
>
I'm not sure they'd even comprehend what hot girl-on-girl action was.
Even those members of staff who were thought to be "that way" inclined.
Lesley
--
Sponsor me for the Mencap Nile Bike Ride 2002 - 7-17th Feb
http://www.geah.org/nilebikeride/
Andrew Nightingale
>Even those members of staff who were thought to be "that way" inclined.
The very next post I reached after this posting was the "topless
celebrities" spam.
--
Andrew Nightingale of Cambridge (UK)
Jón Fairbairn
> >I'm not sure they'd even comprehend what hot girl-on-girl action was.
> >Even those members of staff who were thought to be "that way" inclined.
>
> The very next post I reached after this posting was the "topless
> celebrities" spam.
Thomas More, Anne Boleyn, Michael Findlay?
--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fa...@cl.cam.ac.uk
Andrew Nightingale
Who is he?
Robin Fairbairns
>"Andrew Nightingale" <andre...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>> >I'm not sure they'd even comprehend what hot girl-on-girl action was.
>> >Even those members of staff who were thought to be "that way" inclined.
>>
>> The very next post I reached after this posting was the "topless
>> celebrities" spam.
>
>Thomas More, Anne Boleyn, Michael Findlay?
ooh, do topless celebrities have their bits tucked underneath their
arms, then?
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge -- rf10 at cam dot ac dot uk
Jón Fairbairn
> =?iso-8859-1?q?J=F3n?= Fairbairn <j...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >"Andrew Nightingale" <andre...@ntlworld.com> writes:
> >
> >> >I'm not sure they'd even comprehend what hot girl-on-girl action was.
> >> >Even those members of staff who were thought to be "that way" inclined.
> >>
> >> The very next post I reached after this posting was the "topless
> >> celebrities" spam.
> >
> >Thomas More, Anne Boleyn, Michael Findlay?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> ooh, do topless celebrities have their bits tucked underneath their
> arms, then?
That's what I was thinking. . .
--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fa...@cl.cam.ac.uk
Jón Fairbairn
> >Michael Findlay?
> Who is he?
A film director who was decapitated by a helicopter.
--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fa...@cl.cam.ac.uk
Maneki Neko
> =?iso-8859-1?q?J=F3n?= Fairbairn <j...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >"Andrew Nightingale" <andre...@ntlworld.com> writes:
> >
> >> The very next post I reached after this posting was the "topless
> >> celebrities" spam.
> >
> >Thomas More, Anne Boleyn, Michael Findlay?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> ooh, do topless celebrities have their bits tucked underneath their
> arms, then?
And do they walk the Bloody Tower?
--
None of the above should be construed as affecting your rights of
infangthief, outfangthief, herbage, turbary, piscary, pannage, estovers,
common in soil, merchets, heriots, escheats, pickage, stallage, chevage,
multures, leirwite or mainmorte.
Janet McKnight
<rmacm...@cix.co.uk> did say:
[libraries are for...]
> middle class people to get the stuff free that they could easily pay for
I couldn't easily pay for all the books that I've borrowed from libraries
over the years. Many of them are out of print, and many are academic texts
which even if they were still in print would cost in excess of 40 quid to
buy (a ridiculous amount to pay when I only want to skim-read one essay,
or check a reference from another source).
This is quite aside from the fact that if I had bought all the books I've
borrowed from libraries, I would have also had to buy a small mansion to
put them all in...
Janet McKnight
<newsg...@geah.org> did say:
> Janet McKnight wrote:
> > good to see that schools are finally realising that evil web-mail clients
> > are far more damaging to our youth than HOT GIRL-ON-GIRL ACTION.
>
> I'm not sure they'd even comprehend what hot girl-on-girl action was.
> Even those members of staff who were thought to be "that way" inclined.
There's only one member of staff (no longer at the school) whom I *know*
to be "that way" inclined (or rather "both ways" inclined). I suspect she
had a very good understanding of hot girl-on-girl action, although sadly I
couldn't persuade her to demonstrate her knowledge in that field... ;-)
Robert Macmillan
jane...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Janet McKnight) wrote:
> And lo, on Thu, 20 Dec 2001 17:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Robert
> Macmillan <rmacm...@cix.co.ukdid say:
>
> [libraries are for...]
> > middle class people to get the stuff free that they could easily pay
> > for
>
> I couldn't easily pay for all the books that I've borrowed from
> libraries over the years. Many of them are out of print, and many are
> academic texts
> which even if they were still in print would cost in excess of 40 quid
> to
> buy (a ridiculous amount to pay when I only want to skim-read one essay,
> or check a reference from another source).
I was thinking of local authority libraries rather that anything which
might cater for academics.
> This is quite aside from the fact that if I had bought all the books
> I've borrowed from libraries, I would have also had to buy a small
> mansion to put them all in...
Or recycle them through second-hand shops. However, you've missed an
alternative which is that libraries could charge people to borrow books.
Shock, horror. Just as they do for videos and CDs.
Robert
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
jane...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Janet McKnight) writes:
> And lo, on Thu, 20 Dec 2001 17:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Robert Macmillan
> <rmacm...@cix.co.uk> did say:
> [libraries are for...]
> > middle class people to get the stuff free that they could easily pay for
>
> I couldn't easily pay for all the books that I've borrowed from libraries
> over the years. Many of them are out of print, and many are academic texts
> which even if they were still in print would cost in excess of 40 quid to
> buy (a ridiculous amount to pay when I only want to skim-read one essay,
> or check a reference from another source).
Did you really have to borrow the books to do that? I'm really saying that
there's a difference between a reference library, where you may not remove
books but may read them in situ (well, on site anyway), and a lending
library where you take a book - perhaps recreational fiction - away for an
extended period and read the whole thing.
I think it's fair to say that lending libraries are certainly for middle
class people to get the stuff free that they could easily pay for, while
reference libraries are something quite different.
- Huge
st...@posgpgalme.org
> I think it's fair to say that lending libraries are certainly for middle
> class people to get the stuff free that they could easily pay for
I remember the local lending library where I grew up was used by a lot
of families that probably wouldn't count as middle class and who
certainly could not "easily" pay for books in sufficient quantity and
variety for their kids' reading appetites. We weren't grindingly poor
and we bought a reasonable number of books, but I'm sure that we
couldn't have afforded to buy the 2 or 3 books per week that we each
got out of the library. IMHO tax money spent enabling and encouraging
children of less affluent families to read is money well spent. I
suppose what you are really saying is that you don't believe the
working classes read or go the library, but IME this is not true, or
wasn't "in my day" at any rate.
-- Steve
Janet McKnight
<rmacm...@cix.co.uk> did say:
[on why the middle-class don't need libraries]
> I was thinking of local authority libraries rather that anything which
> might cater for academics.
I was thinking of my former local authority library (Oxford city library),
which I used quite a lot when I was a student at the university. They had
a reasonable selection of literary criticism -- not much use for anything
screamingly up-to-date, but fairly good for more established stuff and
historical/biographical criticism. And they, unlike the university's many
libraries, didn't suffer quite so much from the problem that everybody
ended up wanting the same book at once...
> [...] you've missed an
> alternative which is that libraries could charge people to borrow books.
> Shock, horror.
I didn't "miss" that alternative; I just don't think it's a good one.
Mike Pitt
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@redxhatx.com> wrote:
>I think it's fair to say that lending libraries are certainly for middle
>class people to get the stuff free that they could easily pay for, while
>reference libraries are something quite different.
I don't. Or rather I'd like to see some evidence on the matter. (This
could degenerate into yet another class defintion argument...)
All I can find didn't differentiate between mode of library use but for
what little it is worth:
http://www.la-hq.org.uk/directory/prof_issues/natstr.html
claims "users are taken from every social class more or less equally
to their presence in the general population", but does admit a "slight
bias to the A's and B's".
http://www.libr.org/ISC/articles/10-public.html
quotes a report that says much the same. (The same data source I guess).
It also quotes a second report that says "working class users who mainly
visit libraries to borrow books" compared to the "wider" use of the middle
classes. Oddly perception is what you think: "non users predominantly
suspect that public library users are mainly middle class and that the
library has an unchanging image" (same web page.) Now the conclusions
drawn from these studies could well lead to a flame war.
There is extensive use of the libraries by people who are counted in the
surveys as "Working class". Additionally many libraries were linked
historically to working men's associations.
Mike
Janet McKnight
<hm...@redxhatx.com> did say:
[skimming essays or checking references]
> Did you really have to borrow the books to do that?
Not to check references, no, but if I want to read something -- even just
skim it -- I'd rather read it in my own room than in a room full of noisy
people where the only lighting is flickery fluorescent strips (which give
me bad headaches). I'd also rather not have to bring all my own copies of
primary sources that I might want to refer to while reading related
criticism, to compare (and contrast), or check a quotation, or make notes
in the margins.
> I'm really saying that
> there's a difference between a reference library, where you may not remove
> books but may read them in situ (well, on site anyway), and a lending
> library where you take a book - perhaps recreational fiction - away for an
> extended period and read the whole thing.
What if you want to take something that's fiction, but not recreational
fiction, away and read it? For an OU degree, or for EFL practice, or
suchlike? What if, indeed, you want to take non-fiction away and read it?
And are only middle-class people allowed to read for recreation?
> I think it's fair to say that lending libraries are certainly for middle
> class people to get the stuff free that they could easily pay for,
Perhaps I'm being overly idealistic in assuming that people who can't
afford to buy books might still have an interest in reading them. Besides,
even if they *were* interested, well, if you can't afford to buy books
then you don't have a right to read them for leisure. Clearly museums and
parks should all charge for entry as well -- we can't have people getting
something for nothing, can we?
After all, it's not as if there's any value in recreational reading for
general literacy. And in the age of universal spell-checkers, nobody needs
to be literate anyway.
Janet McKnight
<mike...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> did say:
[lots of useful information]
Thanks Mike -- I was going to ask for that sort of evidence but thought
this went contrary to the spirit of netnews... and besides, I reckoned I
should ask my local library for information like that. ;-)
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
jane...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Janet McKnight) writes:
> And lo, on 14 Jan 2002 15:19:17 +0000, Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
> <hm...@redxhatx.com> did say:
> [skimming essays or checking references]
> > Did you really have to borrow the books to do that?
>
> Not to check references, no, but if I want to read something -- even just
> skim it -- I'd rather read it in my own room than in a room full of noisy
> people where the only lighting is flickery fluorescent strips (which give
Uh, that sounds like a case for making the library more like a library, not
for unlimited borrowing. Where on earth was/is this hellhole?
> > I'm really saying that
> > there's a difference between a reference library, where you may not remove
> > books but may read them in situ (well, on site anyway), and a lending
> > library where you take a book - perhaps recreational fiction - away for an
> > extended period and read the whole thing.
>
> What if you want to take something that's fiction, but not recreational
> fiction, away and read it? For an OU degree, or for EFL practice, or
I know, fiction which is course work is the obvious exception; in that case
it's like a reference book.
> suchlike? What if, indeed, you want to take non-fiction away and read it?
> And are only middle-class people allowed to read for recreation?
No. Only people who can afford it are allowed to read for recreation. ;-)
> > I think it's fair to say that lending libraries are certainly for middle
> > class people to get the stuff free that they could easily pay for,
>
> Perhaps I'm being overly idealistic in assuming that people who can't
> afford to buy books might still have an interest in reading them.
I'm sure there are people who can't afford a scuba-diving holiday in the
Maldives but might still have an interest in going on one - if the
government were paying. ;-)
All I wanted to say really was this: there's a difference between reference
libs which one visits but doesn't borrow from, and lending libs with
recreational fiction which exist entirely for borrowing from, mostly for
entertainment but sometimes for betterment. There is somewhat of an
argument that the "entertainment" sort should be accounted differently from
the reference sort. I don't actually hold the extreme position that they
should be self financing, but OTOH if they lend out Jeffrey Archer "novels"
FOC to anyone, why not also something worthwhile like Schwarzenegger
movies?
- Huge
Martin Read
>FOC to anyone, why not also something worthwhile like Schwarzenegger
>movies?
Because they're more likely to get the JA *back* than the Schwarzenegger?
m.
--
\_\/_/| Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
\ / | and i feel a yearning to be done with all this measuring of proof
\/ | an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth and anyway i told the truth
------+ and i'm not afraid to die -- nick cave, "the mercy seat"
Tim Ward
news:wwtsn98...@masala.cambridge.redhat.com...
>
> lending libs with
> recreational fiction which exist entirely for borrowing from, mostly for
> entertainment but sometimes for betterment.
It is conventional wisdom that small children should be encouraged to read
recreational fiction because it improves their literacy and thus, at the end
of the day, their ability to acquire and hold down quite a high proportion
of available jobs.
Should the same not apply to adults?
In which case should there be a reading test before you're allowed to borrow
a novel for free? - only those who fail the reading test get to borrow the
book? - if you can read properly already you're not going to derive any
"betterment" from it.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Ltd - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Thomas Thurman
> In which case should there be a reading test before you're allowed to borrow
> a novel for free? - only those who fail the reading test get to borrow the
> book? - if you can read properly already you're not going to derive any
> "betterment" from it.
It's very easy to fail a test deliberately.
T
Mark Carroll
Robert Macmillan <rmacm...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
(snip)
>I was thinking of local authority libraries rather that anything which
>might cater for academics.
>Or recycle them through second-hand shops. However, you've missed an
>alternative which is that libraries could charge people to borrow books.
>Shock, horror. Just as they do for videos and CDs.
Or, shock horror, libraries could work like the local one I have here,
which has a smaller university library integrated into its catalogue
as a branch, and from which I can borrow videos, DVDs and CDs for
free. (-: And, the main university offers trivially cheap library
rights for local non-academics. In my experience of a variety of
public services, it's certainly been a surprise to be preferring some
American ones over British counterparts.
-- Mark
Robert Macmillan
> Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@redxhatx.com> writes:
> > I think it's fair to say that lending libraries are certainly for
> > middle
> > class people to get the stuff free that they could easily pay for
>
> I remember the local lending library where I grew up was used by a lot
> of families that probably wouldn't count as middle class and who
> certainly could not "easily" pay for books in sufficient quantity and
> variety for their kids' reading appetites. We weren't grindingly poor
> and we bought a reasonable number of books, but I'm sure that we
> couldn't have afforded to buy the 2 or 3 books per week that we each
> got out of the library. IMHO tax money spent enabling and encouraging
> children of less affluent families to read is money well spent.
So do I. My objection is to adults who can easily afford it getting their
entertainment for free, subsidised by everyone else. I think that children
should be given every encouragement to read and it is appropriate for them
to be provided with free reading materials, just as they should receive
free education.
Robert
Robert Macmillan
jane...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Janet McKnight) wrote:
>
> Perhaps I'm being overly idealistic in assuming that people who can't
> afford to buy books might still have an interest in reading them.
My original complaint has been exaggerated beyond its intent. I'm not
objecting to people who can't afford to buy books being given access to
them. There could be exemptions to charges for students and people on
benefits, for example, just as local authorities find it within their
ability to help these people with other services. I am merely objecting to
people who can easily afford books having their entertainment subsidised.
And, BTW, if you did recognise that my suggestion could involve small
charges to borrow books, then you might stop keep objecting to the
requirement to buy them.
We have come a long way in a hundred years. A century ago when public
lending libraries were established, a large fraction of the population
couldn't afford books. Nowadays we have the situation where the lower
income groups purchase more satellite TV, lottery tickets, fags and booze
for their pleasure than the higher income groups. If they were interested
in books, for most the cost wouldn't put them off.
> After all, it's not as if there's any value in recreational reading for
> general literacy. And in the age of universal spell-checkers, nobody
> needs to be literate anyway.
Glunk. That *is* a joke, isn't it?
Robert
Robert Macmillan
t...@brettward.co.uk (Tim Ward) wrote:
> "Hugo 'NOx' Tyson" <hm...@redxhatx.com> wrote in message
> news:wwtsn98...@masala.cambridge.redhat.com...
> >
> > lending libs with
> > recreational fiction which exist entirely for borrowing from, mostly
> > for entertainment but sometimes for betterment.
>
> It is conventional wisdom that small children should be encouraged to
> read recreational fiction because it improves their literacy and thus,
> at the end of the day, their ability to acquire and hold down quite a
> high proportion of available jobs.
Quite so.
> Should the same not apply to adults?
Not particularly. Children need lots of encouragement to learn to read.
Adults by and large should have learnt and be self-motivated. If they
haven't/aren't they should still be encouraged but the help needed is more
specialised and not adequately served by a general lending library which
is mostly catering to other needs.
Further, children and students are reliant on others for their finance for
their spending. They should still have access to books even if their
parents are insufficiently motivated to help, as unfortunately applies to
too many parents.
cf universal education for children
Robert
Russell Vincent
> So do I. My objection is to adults who can easily afford it getting their
> entertainment for free, subsidised by everyone else. I think that children
Erm ... if the "adults" can easily afford it, the chances are they
are the ones subsidising it, or am I missing something?
-Russell
Robert Macmillan
r...@openusenet.org (Russell Vincent) wrote:
I think you're missing that a lot less than 100% of council tax payers
visit libraries.
Robert
Lesley Mitchell
>
> Children need lots of encouragement to learn to read.
They do? I love sweeping generalizations.
My mother taught me to read whe I was three and I've not looked back
since.
And, btw, I buy all my books these days, because there's generally such
a lack of stuff I want to read in most council libraries. (There's my
sweeping generalization for the day. :-))
L.
--
LESLEY MITCHELL
Sponsor me for the Mencap Nile Bike Ride - 10th-17th Feb 2002
http://www.geah.org/nilebikeride/
Colin Rosenstiel
rmacm...@cix.co.uk (Robert Macmillan) wrote:
I think you're making the common mistake of assuming that a tax is a
payment for services. It ain't. It's a tax.
Colin Rosenstiel
Janet McKnight
<hm...@redxhatx.com> did say:
[I said stuff about libraries being noisy and fluorescent-lit]
> Uh, that sounds like a case for making the library more like a library, not
> for unlimited borrowing. Where on earth was/is this hellhole?
1) I'm not *trying* to make a case for unlimited borrowing. Some books are
clearly more *useful* as reference books, and there are already
limitations (in all the libraries I've ever used) on how many books people
can borrow.
2) What on earth do you mean by "more like a library"? If you have in mind
some dreadful stereotype of a dusty wood-panelled room where you get stern
looks from some old battleaxe in a cardigan if you walk around too
noisily, then personally I think that the further away from that we get
the better. There's nothing more guaranteed to put the average user off
using a place.
3) "This hellhole" (being all the city libraries I've used, and Oxford
University's English Faculty Library, and Pembroke College's library) was
not in any way particularly bad or even unusual -- just a place with
people in it, lit in the way that municipal buildings generally are. I
think letting people read in their own chosen environment (assuming, of
course, that you think it's a good idea for them to read at all) is a much
better solution than trying to make libraries all things to all people.
> > What if you want to take something that's fiction, but not recreational
> > fiction, away and read it? For an OU degree, or for EFL practice, or
>
> I know, fiction which is course work is the obvious exception; in that case
> it's like a reference book.
But it's not. You don't *read* it like a reference book, for a start. And
how do you distinguish between fiction which is course work and fiction
which isn't? Where do you draw the line between extra interest in work,
and leisure?
> > And are only middle-class people allowed to read for recreation?
>
> No. Only people who can afford it are allowed to read for recreation. ;-)
If that's what you really think, then I don't think there's any point in
my arguing this further with you.
> [...] I don't actually hold the extreme position that they
> should be self financing, but OTOH if they lend out Jeffrey Archer "novels"
[...]
Ah, I was right then -- it *is* just cultural snobbery after all.
Janet McKnight
<rmacm...@cix.co.uk> did say:
> In article <iFE08.16543$WQ1.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> t...@brettward.co.uk (Tim Ward) wrote:
>
> > Should the same not apply to adults?
>
> Not particularly. Children need lots of encouragement to learn to read.
> Adults by and large should have learnt and be self-motivated.
I'd be quite happy for libraries to charge for borrowing if that fee went
towards providing good education free-of-charge for everybody instead.
> If they
> haven't/aren't they should still be encouraged but the help needed is more
> specialised and not adequately served by a general lending library which
> is mostly catering to other needs.
Just out of interest, do you have any evidence for this? e.g. have you
been involved in teaching adults EFL or general literacy? (I haven't!) I'd
be interested to know if this is anything more than just speculation or
unfounded assertion, since I suspect illiterate or second-language-
learning adults will derive just as much benefit from reading for pleasure
as children do... However I don't have any evidence for this claim either.
> Further, children and students are reliant on others for their finance for
> their spending. They should still have access to books even if their
> parents are insufficiently motivated to help, as unfortunately applies to
> too many parents.
This is true. (And you suddenly seem to be arguing for the other side!)
What would you propose as an alternative to lending libraries, then? How
are you going to bring books to children whose parents won't offer any
help?