Welcome, Guest [Log In]
 
 
RSS Feed Archives
X3watch Accountability Software

Filters Needed....Not just for Legislature

By Craig on Mon, Jul 28th 08 at 08:58AM | Permalink | Comments (8)

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Legislative leaders sought to install filters to block inappropriate material from being viewed on state computers two days after a veteran assemblyman's computer was seized for containing child pornography.

The leaders released a statement Friday saying they want "the most aggressive Internet filtering software available on all computers in the Legislature."

The move comes after state investigators seized computers from Assemblyman Neil Cohen on Wednesday. Sen. Raymond Lesniak and Assemblyman Joseph Cryan, who share that office, had alerted authorities about the pornography.

"We recognize that individuals intent on breaking the law and abusing public resources will still seek ways to do so, but this action is aimed at doing everything we can to prevent something of this nature from happening in the future," said a joint statement from Democratic Senate President Richard J. Codey, Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts Jr., Republican Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr. and Assembly Minority Leader Alex DeCroce.

Albert Porroni, state Office of Legislative Services executive director, said such software can be "a very specialized kind of thing."

"It has to be dealt with carefully so that you don't block a site that you've got to do legitimate research on," Porroni said. "But, nonetheless, we are going to address it."

DeCroce, R-Morris, said Cohen's behavior, if proven, "represents one of the most deplorable acts committed by a public servant."

"One of our most important obligations as a society is to protect those who are most vulnerable, particularly our youth," DeCroce said.

He noted Cohen took an oath to uphold the state Constitution and laws.

"And if he has violated that oath, not only must he resign from office, but he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," DeCroce said.

Lee Moore, spokesman for state Attorney General Anne Milgram, said the office had no comment. The U.S. Attorney's Office also declined to comment.

Cohen has not been charged.

The 57-year-old Democrat hasn't answered calls to his cell phone nor responded to text messages. He's been hospitalized for psychiatric treatment.

Cohen served in the Assembly from 1990-91 and from 1994 to present.

Associated Press writer Samantha Henry in Union Township contributed to this report.

N.J. lawmakers push for porn filters on computers - By TOM HESTER Jr., Associated Press Writer

 

+ Post A Comment « Previous Archives Next »
billy wrote on July 28th 08 at 09:56AM
I suppose you did not write this article yourself, but took it from some news site.

Please link to the original source. Otherwise it is plagiarism.
wolfgang wrote on July 28th 08 at 10:37AM
the (AP) stands for Associated Press, the news source that is practically all over the place, but listing the original author wouldn't hurt.
Suricou Raven wrote on July 31st 08 at 09:17AM
"State Assemblyman Joseph Cryan, who shared a district office with Cohen, said the investigation began after a staffer in the Union Township office found a printout of a nude girl, possibly in her early teens or younger."

Idiot... Seems he was only caught because of his own stupidity, leaving a printout like that around the office.

The filters will be completly usless for stopping someone like him, anyway - he would just download at home. The calls for filters have nothing to do with protecting children. They are just blatent attempts to win votes by putting on a big show of being anti-porn.
jon wrote on July 31st 08 at 11:13AM
"Idiot... Seems he was only caught because of his own stupidity, leaving a printout like that around the office."

So do you mean to say--as long as he's not *caught*, it should have been alright to be spending his time in our state supported offices viewing child porn?
billy wrote on July 31st 08 at 07:59PM
Thanks for adding the link. I really appreciate it. :-)
Suricou Raven wrote on August 4th 08 at 02:17AM
I mean it in a quite non-judgemental way: Completly ignoring all moral issues, he is an idiot. The same would apply if someone were to attempt to sell crack to an on-duty police officer. Stupidity is independant of right or wrong.

GraphicArtist2k5 wrote on August 6th 08 at 01:17PM
It's not enough to just put filters on computers operated by state legislatures. What about putting mandatory filters on computers that are in public libraries? When my wife and I lived in Denver, Colorado, we noticed on our way out that a person was viewing porn on a computer in a PUBLIC library, and when we called to complain about it, we were basically given the brush-off. Hello, aren't there children that go to the library all the time? Are there not all kinds of programs at said libraries that are geared towards teaching children how to read better? Then what in the heck is the problem with instituting mandatory filters on every single computer that is in a public location? That's the problem, though, we tend to think that "Oh, it's not that big a deal. It was only just this ONE time." What we fail to realize is that all it takes is ONE time for the devil to take ahold of our minds with his perversions, and he WILL go after our children, make no mistakes about it.
Suricou Raven wrote on August 8th 08 at 10:37AM
GraphicArtist, librarians tend to oppose that for a few reasons.

- Firstly, they are often very dedicated to free speech, and their commitment to this requires they oppose filtering, often on the grounds that the state has no business deciding what people can and cannot look at.
-Secondly, they want to avoid getting caught up in disputes over what is and what isn't porn - if they use a filter, someone has to decide, and one person's porn is another's art or medical reference.
-Third, it's a lot of hastle because filters need constant intervention when they either miss some porn or block something innocent. I worked at a school for eight months, and this happened all the time - helpdesk had frequent calls from teachers to say that their educational resource was being blocked for some reason.
-Fourth, liability issues: If the library accepts a responsibility to stop porn, they expose themselves to legal action when they inevitably fails.
-Fifth, slippery slope concerns. If they filter porn, they put a filter in place. Once the filter exists, there will be all sorts of calls to use it - it starts with porn, but soon there will be demands that erotic fiction sites are banned, then sites containing 'hate speech.' Sites detailing how to evade the filters will have to be blocked. Politicians of all factions may look for excuses to get the supporters of their enemies blocked on a pretext. It's not likely there will be librarians deciding what is permitted - every level of government from the federal to the city will be making it's own requests. A filter is too powerful for anyone to be trusted with.
-Sixth, it's not going to work. Filters are always imperfect, no matter how well-designed, some porn will get through. What is the point of filters that are only partially effective?
-Seventh, it's not needed. Libraries already have a way to deal with people looking at porn: Kick them out. Problem solved. Enforcement of this can be a bit unreliable, but that's a problem of staffing, and can't be solved by seeing filters as a magic bullet.
-Eighth, there arn't that many unsupervised children in the library. They almost always visit with an adult to watch over them.
the X3 Speaking Team X3WATCH
Gospel.com Community Member