Web filters are very arbitary and often make no sense atall (hence the
useless of them in public libraries, not being able to search for
Scunthorpe or information on pregnancy or sexual health among the
examples of things blocked). That the companies do not make public a
list of sites they block shows a major problem with the system.
The existence of an Advocacy category could well be for any
ultra-violent websites advocating harm to certain parts of society as
Zena says but the biggest problem I have with it is that someone made
the decision to add certain sites to the filters in the first place. The
ACLU? I wonder if there are any whistleblower, pro-choice or mainstream
political party sites that are 'tarred' with the same brush?
Of course you can take sites out of the filter but for some fairly basic
well defined sites (especially those that have been around for years,
such as newspapers) to be blocked is wrong and why should IT have to
deal with this? I do wonder how much of this is because it's an
American company.
I have no problem with sites being blocked that are not relevant to your
work, such as gaming sites (however annoying that might be when you're
browsing in your lunch hour) as you agree to such things when you sign
your employment contract. I don't know if it affects my users in the
same way with their general browsing but I do find when I am looking at
sites dealing with professional issues, copyright, or even Library
related photos on Flikr (blocked as 'personal storage'), I keep coming
across the web filtering.
Ignoring what is blocked I still find it amazing how much stuff that
should be blocked with good reason (especially porn) is exceedingly easy
to stumble across even with the WebFilter running. Google Images being a
prime example of this.
Kevin
--
Library and Information Services Manager
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit
15 Chaucer Road
Cambridge
CB2 7EF
United Kingdom
|