Book banning and censorship is a constant issue. Some times the titles change, but censorship is always going to be an ongoing issue as we have seen in our banned book assignment. As well as book burning. Different organization take it upon them self to censor books by burning them to show they do not approve of the book.
Finger scanning of patrons in Library to access the internet is being explored in some libraries. The library would use a finger scanner instead of a library card to use the computers attached to the internet. This way the system could tell the age of the patron and know what kind of filter is needed. Example, adult: it would allow all sites, a minor: would not be access porn, etc. sites. Naperville, Ill public library was to install the finger print scanners in the summer of 2005. Libraries feel it will reduce the children from trading library cards. Critics feel it hinders “privacy and confidentiality issues.”
In line with censoring minors the question of should children be allowed to check out Graphic Novels is being debated by parents. Most Libraries state that this kind of material is in the adult section and children rarely go in that area. They also feel that it is the parents’ responsibility to make sure they don’t check out material that they don’t want their children to read.
Confidentiality is being question with surveillance cameras in libraries that librarians say they need it for their security. The right for the government to access the files of libraries has been question also. The USA Patriot act came into affect on Oct. 26, 2001 to give the government power they needed to fight the war on terrism. “The American Library Association (ALA) opposes any use of governmental power to suppress the free and open exchange of knowledge and information or to intimidate individuals exercising free inquiry…ALA considers that sections of the USA PATRIOT ACT are a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users.”
Questions:
What do you think about filtering a library internet?
Should librarians refuse to check out certain books to minors, such as the graphic novels?
Do you think cameras in libraries and/or having a fingerprint scan, hinder on your privacy?
ALA/ Intellectual Freedom Issues. (2007). Retrieved 2 13, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/Default883.htm#links
ALA/ Resolution on the Patriot Act. (2007). Retrieved 2 13, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=ifresolutions&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=11891
ALA/ Torture. (2007). Retrieved 2 13, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=ifissues&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=77697
ALA/Biometrics. (2007, June 14). Retrieved February 13, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/biometrics.htm
Minow, M. (2004). First Monday. Retrieved 2 13, 2008, from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_4/minow/#note9
37 comments:
I think that libraries should definitely filter their internet connections because with it not being filtered, this can allow for people to utilize the library internet for malicious activities such as a child pedophile, for example, who would be allowed to use the internet for child pornography (or solicitation) so that they would not have to use their home computer to avoid leaving evidence or a potential school shooter who may use the library to research how or where to buy guns or other weapons, so that their family or friends won’t know about their plot. I think that libraries have a social responsibility to be proactive with protecting the public from possible harm as a public entity. It is easy to say that this is or should not be libraries responsibility but because certain information can be used for harmful purposes and because the library can be utilized by anyone as sort of a “cover up” place to perform and hide such activities, if decided to be used this way, I think that restrictions should be placed on what is or is not allowed to be searched on library internets, but should be allowed to be unfiltered in other non-public places.
While doing research on this topic, I came across a law that was passed by President Clinton in 2000, the Children’s Internet Protection Act, which prohibits libraries from allowing what the government considers inappropriate material, such as pornography, from being allowed in school and public libraries by using internet filters. The ALA challenged this law and this resulted in libraries having the option of being required to filter their internets but if they decided not to do so, they would lose E Rate funding. In my opinion, I think libraries should not even have this option because I think there is a huge difference between freedom and speech and ethics. At what point is too much liberal attitude acceptable and is the majority rule, without conservative or other counter balance opinions and arguments in regards to freedom of speech and library material use?
References
US v American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003)
FCC Order 03-188, July 23, 2003
Libraries should censor their content; but for the government to place a heavy hand on the library feels like the government should have and office in charge of libraries. But since most libraries are community handled i think the government should give the library and librarians their space and not pass laws.
The community from where the patrons come should better handle the filtering of library content. Children could come and check out books for their level to read at home. Their parents too could come and borrow books of adult level and adult content. This book could be left any where at home and a child out of curiousity reads this book. At this point is the censorship effective? the finger print form of technology in the library sounds interesting and should be promoted.
I apologize; I did not see the reference about the Children’s Internet Protection Act. I found an article that was posted in February 2007 by American Libraries in regards to other acts that, if passed, would require libraries to filter their internets of other information as as well. These acts include the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 and an act that would prohibit accessing social networking websites in the library. If anyone is interest, the website to the article is posted below:
http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2007/february2007/socialnets.cfm
What if a patron comes into a library and is upset that a librarian refuses to remove a book that they want removed from a collection and starts hurting people? A surveillance camera would be more helpful in identifying this person better than witness accounts. Or what if a person decides to burn a book(s) inside the library that they do not agree with and destroys the library’s entire collection; library security would be able to identify such problems if the library had a surveillance system. I am not trying to be so extreme but these things could happen and evidence would really help libraries get justice for such acts. Moreover, I think that any records that could be used to identify such problems as terrorism should be allowed to be subpoenaed from libraries. In my opinion, this does not violate privacy, because I am sure for example, that if problems such as terrorism or public acts of violence that results in many fatalities occurred, the families and victims would want justice and any information possible that would help them with their situation.
Overall, in regards to the library surveillance and biometrics privacy question, I think that surveillance is a good idea for library staff and patron’s safety (and people in general) and would not violate privacy but I do not like the idea of biometrics because I think that this would cause many unnecessary possible ageism lawsuits against libraries including other problems. If finger print information is stolen, this could lead to a lot of fraud and people being convicted of crimes they did not commit.
I do not think that requiring a fingerprint scan to access the internet would be too much of an invasion of privacy. Maintaining a record of what internet sites a patron accesses is not much different than maintaining a record of what books one has checked out. However, I can understand how some people might feel that it is. For example, someone might be want to research weapons (because they are interested hunting, or the military, or whatever) but feel uncomfortable doing so because they are worried the government might see their internet search and accuse them of plotting a terrorist attack. This may sound a bit far-fetched, but the fact remains that some patrons may end up being afraid of using the library for research.
Do you think cameras in libraries and/or having a fingerprint scan, hinder on your privacy?
I think cameras have just becomed ingrained in our lives at this point. At least that is my personal opinion. I think at this point, many of us feel like we are always being watched in public places from the mall to the gas station, etc. We seem to continue as normal.
As for fingerprinting. Ideally, I think it would be a good way to track things, but I can see where it would be disturbing. I think it would depend on how much information would be held with regards to your print. Eventually though, I think this, like cameras, will just become a way of life.
Should librarians refuse to check out certain books to minors, such as the graphic novels?
If a library has a system set up where the parent's can choose to restrict their child's access, I do not see a problem in this. However, if the librarian decides on their own that this 4th grader should not be checking out some graphic novel, this is where I disagree. As read in some of the discussion board postings, there are libraries that have the children's card (sorry if I have the wrong name) where the parent signed their child up with certain restrictions. If the child would like a book that they cannot check out with their card, their parents may check it out if they feel it is appropriate for their child. This is up to the parent to decide - not the librarian.
This card reminds me of when I was younger and the local video store had something similar where we couldn't rent R-rated movies. My parents had set up the main account and put my siblings and I on the account as well with this restriction. (I can't remember the name of it.) Before I could drive, it didn't do much since I usually needed my parents to take me there. As I got older, my parents decided to take the restriction off and allowed me to check out whatever movies I wanted. This didn't encourage me to rent all kinds and R-rated movies or those you find in the "adult only" section, but rather proved that I had my parents trust and I kept in mind the values that they had instilled in me.
With the parent's permission, I do not see a problem with restricting the children's books to be checked out at a library.
I see the potential benefits in a fingerprint scan to use the Internet, but to me, the cons outweigh the pros. It all feels a little to Big Brother to me; why don't we all just get microchipped or have a barcode tattoo which would contain our information, such as our age, credit history, and the last book we checked out of the library or the last website we visited? Yes, I know that sounds a little Sci-Fi channel, but with the Patriot Act allowing the government access to library records, a fingerprint scan would just make the intrusion into one's privacy that much easier.
On the other hand, I do understand the need for filters for child pornography and the like, but there has to be a better way to do so. Child porn is illegal so any sites found at all should be reported to the authorites no matter what the age of the person who discovered it. Having a children's section with filtered Internet seems to me the better way to go.
I think that Internet filters are necessary in libraries simply due to the massive volume of sexually explicit material on the Internet. I am not one to shelter children from sex, but for them to accidentally view deviant acts online could be a scarring or upsetting experience. I do not think parents should have to fear this happening in a library.
I think that the decision about what children should read lies with the parent or guardian. If a parent is concerned about what a child will read, s/he should accompany the child to the library. Not knowing each individual patron, I do not feel that I would be capable let alone best suited to choose which material is appropriate for a patron.
The fingerprint scan bothers me a little, but cameras do not. Most camera systems don't keep more than, say, 3 days worth of footage and the main goal is typically to prevent crimes like theft or defacing materials. If my laptop were stolen in a library, I'd hope they had cameras. The fingerprint scan seems like it has the potential to be tapped by the government for other uses, which is why it frightens me.
I think filters on library computers are necessary also. There are just way too many weird people who have no shame and will look at anything and don't care who is around. A few years back the library that I was working at did not have filters and a two year saw something she should have not seen. She for some reason pointed out to her dad, who in return made a huge ordeal out of it. He had channel 2, 4, and 7 at the library in no time. Now the library just has the screen that are hard to read unless you are sitting in front of the computer.
I do think that filters are necessary although many libraries do not have them.
I'm not a fan of internet filters. I suppose, if there were a filter that could distinguish between porn and art, then I might consider it for Children's (under 17, going along with the R rating) use machines only. Unfortunately, even people have a hard time distinguishing between porn and art. Filters can't even distinguish between porn and science, which make them pretty useless. And the idea that these filters are meant to keep child pornography and child predators away from those who are interested ... even if this population is the one filtering was really aimed at, their number is so tiny to even bring them up is absurd. It's like Godwin's Law for discussion of internet filters.
And what about the young boy coming to grips with the fact that he's gay. Maybe he can't talk to his parents about it. Or his guidance councilor or whoever. So he comes to the library, hoping to find a gay support forum, or information on how young gay men get by in our society, only to find that the Library's filtering software is blocking it.
But better that than some bad publicity for the library?
If you're concerned about what your kids may access at the library stay with them. Best possible solution. Your child services librarian is not your babysitter. If you're worried about what other people's kids may access at the library, you should mind your own business.
And cameras in libraries? Let the government come see what you're reading? The "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about" philosophy. I find all this really disturbing. These are the beginnings of a police state. There is no greater good that outweighs these evils. We had a meeting with the FBI on the PATRIOT ACT, and I found the whole thing particularly scary. The things some are willing to give up in the name of 'freedom from terrorism' is what I find truly terrifying.
I have mixed feelings regarding the filtering of internet computers. I believe that filtering or blocking sites is necessary within school libraries, although after reading some of the discussion board's posts, someone in authority needs to be reasonable enough to unblock sites on a case by case basis so serious research can be done.
I think the filtering of computers in public settings is a mixed "blessing". On the one hand, it takes the liability away from library staff (think of the patron from Jennifer's post)regarding things inadvertantly being seen on the computer screen. We are less responsible for monitoring patron's activities online and can let the filter be the babysitter.
On the other hand, filters are not perfect. I know they have been tweaked over the years, but they still allow sites that they shouldn't and don't allow sites they should (One example from when our system tested filters was a divorced dad who lived in Michigan and wanted to access his daughter's Ohio school cross country team website. Because the website contained xcountry or something similar, he was denied access to the site). What if a person is looking for information on a disease involving the breasts? Only an adult user would be able to access the site. If the child was trying to find the information for homework, would I be the one to make the decision to unblock the site and let the child get to the information?
Turning the filter on and off for adults versus children could be a dicey situation as well. How do I know how old a certain patron is? Do I have to "card" each person like they do at a bar? Many people come to the library without their library cards (which in my system does not record a patron's age), not to mention having to carry photo id. What if I accidently let a mature-looking 16-year old on without the filter and he is caught looking at porn? How much trouble would I be in? Or would I just not allow anyone without ID to access the internet? I can see the negative implications of that already.
Monroe's public libraries do not have filters, and all monitors are covered with the privacy screens (again not a perfect solution because you can still see the screen from various angles). All of our public internet computers face staff areas and staff monitors patrons. This does not always stop a patron from looking at something they shouldn't, but at the point something appears on the screen, the patron is told to close the site. If it happens again, the patron is asked to leave and an incident report is filled out. I will just say that MySpace is often the worst offender. When we tell patrons to leave the site, they argue that its only MySpace, but when people include nasty pictures on their profiles, we have to ask them to leave that person's profile and not to return to it in the library. Mind you, we do not always catch some patrons. We cannot monitor the screens every second while we are working with other patrons. Even at my branch, where the computers are all in one room and a staff person mans the area at all time, we miss things. Patrons seem to have eyes in the back of their heads and know when we are watching and when we are busy working on a project. If I had to make a choice, I would be against the filters because it is what I'm used to and I think the way our system deals with the issue has worked as well as any filter would.
It's interesting that due to the issues that Mary mentioned, I am in support of internet filters in libraries -at least when children are involved. Although Mary is used to no filters and therefore can see how it can work without them, I am concerned. Librarians are busy and cannot be watching the screens at all times while patrons are on the Internet. Having the screens face towards the open makes it easy to catch them when on an inappropriate site, but also opens up their viewing to the other patrons.
I work in a school library and we do have filters set up throughout the school. Also, while in the library using one of the two computer labs, we have a program called LanSchool installed. This allows us to view the screens of the all of the students and to ensure that they are on task. We are able to send messages to certain computers that may have wandered into a game site to remind them to get back to work. At first, I felt that this was an invasion of privacy, but I do see how important it is. Just today, I have sent out about 4 messages to students that weren't working on their assignment. Each students signed an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) form informing them of the supervision they will be receiving while on school computers.
Obviously this is different than a public library where they are not there as a student in class but rather on their own free will. The LanSchool program would be inappropriate in this situation, but I do feel that filters would be necessary for computers that would be used by children or in area to be viewed by children. Although I am an adult who would not appreciate seeing porn or something of the like on a computer screen, I will not be damaged by this and have the sense to look away and move to a different area. Children are more apt to be disturbed by it and may not have the knowledge to just look away.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Russell. I think the intrusion of the government (patriot act) and filters on internet access in a public libraries is disturbing and unncessary. Who are we protecting? The children? Or their parents from the uncomfortable task of actually engaging them in meaningful conversation, or telling them "No" about accessing a website? Filters don't work the way they are supposed to half the time anyway. When they do 'work', they may be blocking legitimate needs (for instance your hypothetical gay teenager).
I stated on the discussion boards the same basic feeling that if it is necessary for your child to be completely 'safe' from adult content, they should be monitored by you, the parent, at all times. The public library should not be a babysitter.
Mary, do the librarians at Monroe's library monitor *all* patrons, or just ones who appear underage? From the Acceptable Use Policy it sounds like an eye is kept on everyone. While I understand the part of the policy considers anything brought up on the computer is "on display for public viewing" (p. 1), it seems like there's potentially a privacy issue there. Is there any conflict with the ALA Code of Ethics item III, concerning the "library user's right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information"? Is there a "private" terminal for viewing material which may not be suitable for public consumption? Were you working for the library when the policy was formed? I'm wondering what sort of debate there was on the issue, if any.
My own library's Internet Use Policy requires that one not "engage in any activity which is deliberately and maliciously obscene, libelous, or slanderous." The policy around sexually offensive material is that someone needs to see another person viewing the material, be offended, and report to a librarian (no monitoring goes on). I suppose part of the difference in policies has to do with academic my library being academic rather than public.
Regarding children, our statement reads,
"It is the Libraries' policy that parents or legal guardians must assume responsibility for deciding what library resources are appropriate for their children. The Libraries do not filter Internet access so parents/guardians should let their children know if there are materials that they do not want them to use. Parents/guardians should supervise their children's workstation use."
This is not entirely unlike the Monroe County Library's statment (which I appreciated): "
Children who use the Internet unsupervised may be exposed to inappropriate or disturbing information and images. Parents and legal guardians are responsible for the information accessed by their children and are encouraged to monitor their children’s use of the Internet. Parents should make children aware that adults may use Internet chat rooms or other Internet communications to attempt to make improper contacts with them. (Monroe County Library, Acceptible Use Policy p. 1)
What are some of the other policy statements around?
Speaking to the graphic novel question, I was researching a bit and ran across this website:
http://www.graphicnovels.brodart.com/selection_criteria.htm
What do people think about this?
Reading the posts thus far, including curiosity, has really made me wonder how should librarians actually go about buying books for their libraries. I came across a book that I definitely will be reading soon to get a better understanding of this process; it is listed below if anyone is interested more in the library book buying process. Hopefully, this book can help take out some of the guess as to how librarians select books to be in their libraries.
Buying Books: A How-To-Do-It Manual for Librarians by Eaglen
What do you think about filtering a library internet?
I am not sure what I think about this. If the filter technology improves tremendously, I will be more likely to view filters as a positive.
Should librarians refuse to check out certain books to minors, such as the graphic novels?
No. Equal access to all is fundamental. It's a parent's responsibility to monitor their child's book choices.
Do you think cameras in libraries and/or having a fingerprint scan, hinder on your privacy?
I have no problems with cameras or fingerprint scans. I'm not looking for privacy when I go to the library; I'm looking for information or entertainment. I suppose cameras do affect privacy but I would be willing to trade that for security, as I do when I go to a mall.
Do you think cameras in libraries and/or having a fingerprint scan, hinder on your privacy?
I think that fingerprint scans are a great idea. Especially when it comes to filtering the internet. By having the component to grant restricted or unrestricted access to the Internet right there on the computer can help alleviate some of the stress that librarians can have. I say this due to the case of the American Civil Liberties Union against the North Central Regional Library District in Washington where a librarian refused to grant an adult patrons request to unlock public computers although such requests should be granted per the CIPA. If the librarian was not in a position to pass judgment on the patron or have the duty to decide if the person was old enough to have restricted access removed, it could make their lives a little easier as well as for the patrons.
I agree with Sarah L. and Russell. The library should be a place where information can be pursued without the judgment of others.
Filters: The point of going to a library is to find information. If I couldn't do research for a paper on a school computer, what's the point of even using it? I think most libraries have filters on the children's computers and the adult computer lab is unrestricted. Instead of placing a filter on the kid computers, you could just have Grolier's or some simplistic encyclopedia software on the computers. You could also have some interactive learning games. Like Russell said- parents could always watch their kids.
Graphic novels & minors: Kids love graphic novels. A library should provide for the reading needs of everyone. It is the job of the librarian to provide open access to information. If the parents want to censor their child's reading selections as they head to the check-out, it is their choice.
Cameras in libraries:
Cameras can be helpful in identifying suspects, but stealing a book isn't exactly worth pursuing. In a university library, everyone's walking around with a backpack, laptop and books. Spotting someone with the stolen item could prove difficult. Random but true: While I was at MSU, someone rolled a copy machine out the door and then left it by the bell tower. Another time, someone rolled a study table out the door, but only got a matter of yards down the sidewalk. They didn't need cameras because people were too lazy to actually go through with the theft.
At the South Lyon library you have to show your id if you forgot your library card. Apparently your age is recorded in the system so when you log on it automatic allows you in to age appropriate sites. You can not use the internet with out some kind of id.
Do you think cameras in libraries and/or having a fingerprint scan, hinder on your privacy?
A few of the local branches of the public library I visit have surveillance cameras. I've never felt that it infringed upon my privacy. I've always been more concerned with the fact that some people steal from libraries, there are people who "expose" themselves, and I don't live in a super safe city. I guess I would rather have a bit of safety for both the library staffers and the patrons than worry about if I'm recorded looking for books on the kama sutra or something else like that.
I'm not really sure how I feel about the thumbprint scanners. I've thought about it a lot, but I don't feel averse to them. I am sure that there are some people who are adamantly opposed to them, but I think they could cut down on the trading/borrowing/theft of people's library cards. You can't forge a thumbprint. Again, though, I just don't know how I feel about them.
Should librarians refuse to check out certain books to minors, such as the graphic novels?
No. It is not a librarian's job to act as a parent. Parents should be present to see what their children are checking out. I will not censor.
According to the ALA code of ethics, #2 is: We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources.
Choosing what a child can check out is censorship.
Also, the ALA code #7- We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties and do not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions or the provision of access to their information resources.
Just because we think that a child shouldn't be reading a certain thing doesn't mean their parent would disagree with it also. We should be separating our personal views from our library duties.
So, no, I wouldn't censor what a child can check out.
I think that fingerprint scanners sound like a good idea for using the Internet at a public library. This might even be easier for the patrons who forget to bring the library card with them!
I don't think that this is an invasion of privacy. An article in American Libraries http://www.ala.org/al_onlineTemplate.cfm?Section=alonline&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=94750
says that "The scanners...will replace the current system of requiring patrons to enter their library-card and PIN numbers to prove their identity". All that this fingerprint method is doing is providing an easier and faster way to prove your identity. I would hope that there would not be any more information stored with your fingerprint than with your library card number on the computer.
I also think that this is a great way to ensure that a patron is who they say they are. Some libraries can't afford separate computers for children, but if they could get a grant for fingerprint scanners, it would make having less computers easier. The library could have different levels of filtering for different age groups. This is a good idea because "children" are not all the same. An 8th grader can handle more than a kindergartener. By providing different levels of filtering, it ensures that the 8th grader would be able to do their school project on Anne Frank, but the kindergartener wouldn't be able to see some of the sites about Anne Frank or the time she lived in.
I agree with those who think a library should filter the Internet. I now the library should be a place of access, yet when is there too much access, i.e. minors downloading materials that their parents would not allow. This brings up the point that there should be restrictions on what minors check out the library. I think some materials should have some type of supervision. As far as cameras and finger scans, in a world of identity theft and public violent crimes, I view these measures as a means to protect those we serve.
Do you think cameras in libraries and/or having a fingerprint scan, hinder on your privacy?
I don’t think having cameras in libraries hinder privacy. They’re not put in so that librarians can spy on patrons, it’s a security issue. Cameras help to ensure the safety of patrons and the library staff. They could deter fighting and vandalism, or if a crime occurs they could aid in catching the perpetrator. For instance, if a child was abducted in a library that had cameras the police could use the footage to find out who the abductor was. Ultimately, the library is a public place and so people cannot expect to have complete privacy there. However, the cameras should never be used to spy on patrons. The books, periodicals, etc. that patrons peruse or check out should always be kept private.
Regarding Russell’s question about internet policy statements:
My local library (Zauel branch of the Saginaw Public Libraries) doesn’t have an internet use policy statement. I have never been asked to present a library card or any other form of identification. A few of the computers have filters- when you click on the Internet explorer icon it will ask if you want filtered or unfiltered access. Basically, you’re on the honor system. There is a technology page, but usually it’s just a teenager who reads books until someone has a question or the printer runs out of paper. Personally, I like this arrangement. It forces parents to monitor their children’s activities on the internet. The library staff can focus on working rather than babysitting.
Intellectual Freedom and Filters
Kurt Vonnegut Loved Librarians:
If there are filters on library computers can you be sure you would be able to access this document? Who decides what to screen in and screen out? Does it matter?
"August 11th, 2004 10:31 am
I Love You, Madame Librarian - by Kurt Vonnegut
by Kurt Vonnegut / In These Times
I, like probably most of you, have seen Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. Its title is a parody of the title of Ray Bradbury’s great science fiction novel, Fahrenheit 451. This temperature 451° Fahrenheit, is the combustion point, incidentally, of paper, of which books are composed. The hero of Bradbury’s novel is a municipal worker whose job is burning books.
And on the subject of burning books: I want to congratulate librarians, not famous for their physical strength or their powerful political connections or their great wealth, who, all over this country, have staunchly resisted anti-democratic bullies who have tried to remove certain books from their shelves, and have refused to reveal to thought police the names of persons who have checked out those titles.
So the America I loved still exists, if not in the White House or the Supreme Court or the Senate or the House of Representatives or the media. The America I love still exists at the front desks of our public libraries..."
[click on, or copy and paste link to read the rest]
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikeinthenews/index.php?id=129
I do not think that using a finger print scanner is an invasion of privacy, at least not any more than what we already have in place. Our library system automatically filters the Internet for card holders who are under 18. When someone wants to use a computer they have to type in their library card number. If they have an adult card they have a chice of using a filter or not and if they have child's card they are restriced to using a filter. Introducing a fingerprint scanner will only do two things - one the person will no longer need to carry their card with them and two card numbers cannot be stolen and used by other people.
We do not keep track of the computer usage of individual patrons and every thing on the computer such as the interent history is deleted when the computer restarts. I do not see this technology as an invasion of privacy. Granted we could use it that way, but we could already be doing that with the library cards.
Big Brother is NOT your friend:
I respect the views of everyone who has posted comments here but I must say I am a little frightened by some of them. Here are two more of my offerings to this important dialogue. Please remember technology is not neutral. It is a tool that can be used for good or …you know the rest. Which is worse—pornography or the loss of one’s basic freedoms? In a related theme…lest we forget...
For anyone with an interest in ‘McCarthyism’ and the McCarthy Hearings I recommend the following film. I saw it in the 1970s.
Point of Order! is a 1964 documentary film about the Senate Army-McCarthy Hearings of 1954.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_Order_(film)
Also, one of my favorite verses:
“First they came for…”
For those who have never seen this verse (or one of its many variations) I offer it as something to reflect on when considering freely giving up so much power to the government and remaining silent while losing some fundamental liberties.
As a Canadian I may be mistaken about US history but I thought freedom and liberty were what the American Revolution was all about.
First they came for...
“The variant found on most English and American posters reads[...]
First they came for the Socialists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left
to speak up for me.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
Perhaps we could add:
Then they came for our books, but I wasn’t a book…
[or add your own variation]
What do you think about filtering a library internet?
I think that library filters should be used. Library filters are necessary because as librarians we do not want children to gain access to inappropriate sites. Filtering can aid in preventing this from happening, however it is not full proof as stated by a classmate in this weeks postings. She stated how her second grade daughter had to do an assignment and was using a "filtered" search engine, recommended by the teacher, and received results of an inappropriate nature. I think that having a combination of filtered computers at the library and sufficient staff to watch when children are using the computers can help prevent children from having access to inappropriate sites. Or have computer stations set up just for kids with the filters already installed that way the library staff will not have to modify the access every time a different person used the computer.
Security cameras should be used in libraries but only for security purposes. Cameras should not be used as a monitoring device to record what patrons are viewing on the computer or the types of books they are checking out in order to prosecute them in the future. To paraphrase what Tara Z said, we are used to having cameras watch us in almost everything we do in public, even drive down the street. So these should be allowed in libraries just like they have them in convenience stores because crimes happen everywhere and libraries are no exception, like in the Columbine High School massacre.
As I stated in a previous posting that I agree that Internet filtering should be used in schools and public libraries. I wanted to share a personal experience...
I am not sure if the Purdy Kresge Library currently uses filtering, but I know that they didn't about two years ago. I was actually just passing through the library and I saw a young man watching porn on the schools computer. He was in plain view for anyone to see him. The thing that really disturbed me was there was a lady with a child in the next row. It had been a while since I used a computer at the library, but I thought that you had to enter in your access ID to get onto the Internet.
If people are allowed to view porn sites in a public location should these computers be put in a location where children are not allowed so that they can not mistakenly see pornographic materials?
I have worked at a library for 7 years without internet filters and we very rarely have people viewing porn. Although I can see that this may be a problem in some areas. Within our computer use policy we state that the viewing of pornographic material is not allowed. If we see a patron looking as such material we show them our policy, ask them to stop or leave. Filters may stop porn but they also prevent patrons from researching other information. For example, a patron may have trouble pulling up information on prostate cancer or breast cancer. Valuable information is lost if filters are in place. For some people the library is their only access to a computer for research. If we filter what information they have access to, we are interfering with their Intellectual Freedom rights. If we cannot provide them with a place to access unobstructed information, who will?
Intellectual freedom is the right for every person to hunt for and obtain information without any constraint. In the library context it is our job to provide our patrons with the information they are seeking; we consider them self governors. As for children, it is the parents’ responsibility to check on their kids on the susceptible issues that they don’t want them to gain access to.
I believe that a biometric technology use for access at the libraries won’t solve the problem of children accessing sensitive issues because what if a child is sitting just next to an adult who is watching an adult site? Another problem with finger print is that sometimes it takes long to identify the patrons and sometimes access is failed. However this technology identifies potential terrorists before they can strike.
I think that surveillance cameras at the libraries is essential for both the patrons’ and the employee’s security. Although scrutiny limits the patron’s freedom, is disturbing and appears to be pushing the border of what is acceptable ethically, yet it is very necessary for security reasons!
I believe that librarians should require that for some books, or perhaps books in the adult section, a parent should be with the child if they want to check it out. It is the parents responsibilty to monitor what their child is reading. Therefore, it should be up to the parent to say yes or no to a work, not the librarians job.
While looking for articles on this topic, I was surprised to find an immense amount of information on how parents can make the internet safe for children, also programs on parents and children reading together.
The amount of information on the internet alone points to the fact that the libraries are providing vast amounts of resources for the parents to be involved in the child's library experience. It is the parent who must decide what is appropriate not the librarian.
Do you think cameras in libraries and/or having a fingerprint scan hinder on your privacy?
Yes they do. However, a person shouldn't expect complete privacy in a public place. The cries of infringed liberties often rings loud, but a person’s liberty is not being infringed upon by asking for identification, in this case fingerprints or video images. If people desire to maintain their privacy, it would only make sense conduct certain actions in a private place, not a public place such as a library. Privacy is not mentioned in the constitution, but has been recognized since Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Privacy is the premise upon which Roe v. Wade (1973) was decided. A women can have an abortion, because it happens in private. If person wants privacy, they do things it at home, where privacy is complete and absolute, as opposed to privacy in a public space is limited.
Refrences:
Urofsky, M. I., & Finkelman, P. (2002). A march of liberty: a constitutional history of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press
Post a Comment