library receiving E-rate discounts or LSTA grants to certify that
it "has in place a policy of Internet safety that includes the
operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any
of its computers with Internet access . . . ." (emphasis added));
In re Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service: Children's
Internet Protection Act, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order,
FCC 01-120, 30 (Apr. 5, 2001) ("CIPA makes no distinction
between computers used only by staff and those accessible to the
public.").


Alternatively, libraries can use privacy screens or recessed
monitors to prevent patrons from unwillingly being exposed to
material viewed by other patrons. We acknowledge that privacy
screens and recessed monitors suffer from imperfections as
alternatives to filtering. Both impose costs on the library,
particularly recessed monitors, which, according to the
government's library witnesses, are expensive. Moreover, some
libraries have experienced problems with patrons attempting to
remove the privacy screens. Privacy screens and recessed
monitors also make it difficult for more than one person to work
at the same terminal.
These problems, however, are not insurmountable. While
there is no doubt that privacy screens and recessed terminals
impose additional costs on libraries, the government has failed
to show that the cost of privacy screens or recessed terminals is
substantially greater than the cost of filtering software and the
resources needed to maintain such software. Nor has the
government shown that the cost of these alternatives is so high
as to make their use prohibitive. With respect to the problem of