When I first heard about Kanguard my first impression was "great ! …the libraries are starting to do it for themselves, they will 'get it'€." This impression is based upon the assumption that they way we get things done is by doing it. To produce an effective filter in the marketplace of ideas and capital you have to '€œget it' or you are gone. My second thought was “how can we contribute to Kangard”

Three things immediately came to mind.

1. We have a large list of url’s we could give them to Kangard in the 'barnraising' spirit.
2. We could supply them with an analytical phrase filter vocabulary. They don’t implement one.
3. If the reason they don’t have such an important capability is technical we could probably deliver one for costs.

Historically, I can only find two articles that contain 'new' information about Kangard.

1. Kanguards creators statement
2. Lori Ayers interview

They were kind enough to mention us at the bottom of the article.

Library Software Filters

Library consultant Lori Bowen Ayre of the Galecia Group analyzes all of the major commercial software filters, including The Internet Filter IF-2K, a filter that she thinks is the most responsive to libraries’ "intellectual freedom needs."

The synopsis in lis serv states:

€œThe lists appear to be open, the filter easy for librarians to disable if needed, an online, anonymous form to “add this URL/delete this URL” from the filtering product are available. Challenges to filtered materials and requests to filter materials are run past a committee of five librarians.

This is the same info that was put out in the first articles some 5 months previous.

Is this not a filter or a CIPA workaround?

If it is a CIPA workaround thats fine but I can’t help them with that. If it is a serious filter there are many problems which also prohibit helping them.

I can’t give them my url list because their process of 5 librarians making a decision would take probably about 20 years ( a wild guess) and they would have to be paid so there goes “free” and they proudly state they don’t use 'key word' filtering which means they don’t want an analytical phrase filter. A url list alone will not do it. The list that€ appears to be open actually appears to be as 'locked up'€ as any private filter company and probably for some of the same reasons. I cannot find an open list and Kangard states the following.

€œA filter maintenance form is available at participating public libraries. The librarian will forward requests for consideration of sites to the Kanguard review committee.

Currently we are in the process of total transparency , not just for our clients but to the world as a methodology of adding and deleting URL’s. Here is, 'an in house' example of a page that contains .075 percent of our porn domains. These will be incorporated in our next build after they are finally 'worked' Each domain has many other porn sites and sub directories attached. This will give you an idea of the immensity of what 5 librarians would have to look at.

Make no mistake this is the real deal so if your porn squeamish don’t bother:

• research.internetfilter.com

Kangard is probably good politics for somebody, a work around for CIPA probably, but as a filter it needs a lot of work and thats not a bad thing . All filters need a lot of work.

The question is: do they intend to do the work?

And if so …how can we help them.