Information policies are the kind of policies that deal with access to information. These policies have been for long playing a critical role in libraries, thus affecting the librarians as well as the patrons.
Information policies imposed by the government can affect both the patrons and the librarians. One example is the Patriotic Act that impinges primarily on libraries. This act threats the patrons’ privacy and confidentiality with regard to information they seek borrow and acquire. Only through a court order, the FBI has the right to track users’ records of all types of access to information through the library. This issue will probably push some patrons fear to access certain type of information and make them feel unsecure. Not only this act has a negative effect on patrons but also it touches upon the librarians’ ethics of code. It makes us as professionals face a dilemma; according to ALA code of ethics we shall protect our users’ right for privacy by not divulging any information about their access to information records. However with the patriotic act we found ourselves obliged to violate the code of ethics and provide the government with the information they are seeking in the case of a court order.
Another issue of information policy that affects the libraries and patrons is the censorship issue. Law enforcement agencies can censor the libraries and remove any material that they deem inappropriate for public disclosure. Not to forget the Children Internet Protection Act through which the government have imposed on libraries to install filters on their public computers in order for them not to lose their funding. Those issues stir the patrons’ right to have full access to information in a democratic society. Patrons who use to have access to this information have to shift to other resources which may not turn out to be heavily reliable. With little accessibility to governmental resources, we as librarians will have to work hard to provide the patrons with information they are seeking; in a world where we have been for long devoted to constitutional right for full free access to information by our users.
Copyright could be an additional issue to mention in this context. Librarians play a vital role as promoter for individual users of copyrighted materials. The librarians place tremendous efforts in informing themselves about copyrighted policies and making these policies clear to the staff and the patrons. License requirements could eradicate the right of libraries to lend products and bequeath library materials. Again this issue clashes with the librarians’ mission in providing full access of information to patrons; on the other hand it limits the users’ right for free access to information.
Discussion questions
1. As a librarian what would you do to protect your library from the Patriotic Act effect’s on both your library and your patrons? Do you think that this act has succeeded in minimizing the terrorist attacks as deemed by the government?
2. As a librarian do you think that placing censorship is appropriate? Why? If you are the decision maker in your library, would you place filters?
3. How would you behave in case of a patron violating the copyright rules in front of you? Do you think that librarians have total hegemony over copyrighted materials placed at their libraries?
Bibliographies
1. Butler, R. P. (Fall 2003). Copyright Law and Organizing the Internet. Library Trends 52(2), 307-317.
2. Dobija, J. (2007, September). The First Amendment Needs New Clothes. American Libraries 38(8), 50-53.
3. Woolwine, D. E. (2007). Libraries and the Balance of Liberty and Security. Library Philosophy and Practice 1-17.
51 comments:
As a future librarian, I do not feel the censorship is appropriate. I do, however, believe in age-appropriateness. Therefore, if a book contains questionable content, and is placed in the Children's Section, it may be a wise decision to evaluate the book and if necessary, relocate it to the Young Adult or Adult sections. I don't feel that this would be censorship because the patrons would still have access to the book.
I don't believe that censorship is appropriate because it denies the patron's access to information. If I were the decision-maker in my library, I may place filters on computers, as long as the filters work properly. I don't think it is appropriate to allow pornography to be viewed on public computers, due to the fact that there are young individuals in the library who should not view that. If the filters could block that content, then I would place them on the computers, however it seems that filters used in school libraries and public libraries today block out other content that could be useful for the patron. It seems these filters aren't effective because "they sweep too broadly, blocking only some sites with indecent materials while restricting access to thousands of legal and useful resources, and failing to block communications sent through e-mail, chat rooms, non-Web sources, peer-to-peer exchanges, and streaming video—now popular modes for distributing pornography" (Kranich).
Jessica Kay-Oosterhouse
Kranich, Nancy. Why Filters Won't Protect Children or Adults. Library Administration and Management v. 18 no. 1 (Winter 2004) p. 14-18.
#1. I am not sure whether or not the Patriot Act has cut down on the number of terrorist acts, and the government is certainly not going to broadcast it as they would be giving out information that could affect national security. As a librarian, I am obliged to follow the law as well as my institution's policies. One of those policies has all of our public computers facing a staff person, who has the ability to see the screen of each patron. If I were a terrorist, this would probably deter me somewhat, although if I saw something on a screen that I thought was suspect, I would probably have no recourse for reporting it--that patron could be looking at the info and using it to write a report. Another policy we have deals with our internet sign-in sheet. We ask for first names only, and at the end of the day, once the number of internet users has been recorded on the calendar for statistical usage, we shred the sheets. If an FBI agent were to come in the next day and ask who had been on computer #3 the day before, we would have absolutely no clue as the sheets are destroyed.
Censorship as we have discussed before is a very touchy subject. I think that a well thought out censorship program is necessary, where most people may think it is unnecessary. There needs to be some type of standard in place that can prevent unauthorized users from viewing inappropriate information. i.e. Such as children getting access to books that contain strong sexual content. Now whether it is the place of government officials to make this decision is still something I have not decided on.
When it comes to law enforcement making public documents unavailable I am strongly against that. It would be appropriate for them to put these items in a particular library so only those truly interested can assess them, but to make them entirely unavailable it is undignified to the U.S. citizens. It is the public’s right to view documentation about rulings that could affect their future.
If I were a librarian today, I would place filters on library computers that are accessed by children. I would also put filters on the adult computers depending on the configuration of the library computers so that patrons cannot access pornographic sites in an area where other patrons can see. Based on my computer use and hearing stories from others, I know that filters are not full proof but they are a step in helping to eliminate inappropriate information from being viewed by the wrong users. However, I think it is disgraceful for the government to force libraries to install filters on their computers and threaten to take away their funding if they don’t. What law enforcement does not understand is that librarians have the patrons’ interest at heart. Their overall goal is to provide their customers with relevant and accurate information.
Mary, I like the policy that your library has with the computer log. That method forces you to only keep just enough information that will not divulge too much personal information about a patron (in this case not any at all). I wonder what other methods the FBI would try to take to research who used a particular computer if your library did not have any personal information for them to conduct their case?
Mary-
You said that "As a librarian, I am obliged to follow the law as well as my institution's policies. One of those policies has all of our public computers facing a staff person, who has the ability to see the screen of each patron. If I were a terrorist, this would probably deter me somewhat, although if I saw something on a screen that I thought was suspect, I would probably have no recourse for reporting it--that patron could be looking at the info and using it to write a report."
So why is this policy in place? I am not, in any way questioning you, but rather the policy makers. Have they done it to cover themselves in the event that something does happen, even though, as you say, you have not recourse at the time if you do see something suspect?
In response to the filter question, i have to say, again, that the only true filter is the HUMAN MIND; and many of the librarians I visited with for my Library Visit assignment agree with me and believe the filters that are placed on their computers are an infringement on the rights of patrons, and typically do not work correctly to block "inappropriate" content for children.
This debate has been waging for YEARS and doesn't look like it will end any time soon.
Additional readings on the nature of social networking sites and information policy brought up a similar point, that filters and the legislation that puts them in place are misguided. Many teenagers currently on MySpace no self-regulate by actively hiding their true identities. Our children are ahead of our laws, understand much more than we give them credit for and are as inundated with sexual content in daily life as they are searching the internet.
Mitrano, Tracy. (2006, Nov./Dec.). A wider world: Youth privacy, and social networking technologies. EDUCAUSE Review, 41(6), 16-29.
Jessica,
I definitely agree with you about providing information to patrons based on age appropriateness and moreover, if I had to make library decisions in regards to internet filtering, I would also require that they be installed and remain only if they are working properly. I do not agree with materials being censored, because to me, this takes away an author’s freedom of expression. Yet I do think that there are some materials that should be offered by "request” (such as materials with a heavy sexual or violent theme) versus being able to be “so” accessible to everyone, especially the majority of those who may become offended or who are children, like offering computers, as Kimberly mentioned, without filters to adults but not for children, in order to create a balance between requiring and not requiring restriction of all information.
Materials such as you mentioned, like pornography or moreover information that promotes acts of racism or extreme prejudice, for example, should not be allowed to be accessed in public places such as libraries in my opinion. Although librarians have a professional obligation to provide information to their patrons, I think that there is a social responsibility to promote, in addition to freedom of speech (and information), freedom of being (and social protection, for example), in order to encourage information to be used for intellectual inquiry and development versus for negative and harmful purposes.
Sarah,
I think that you posed some good points. I agree with you that we as individuals are and should be responsible for the information that we request from the internet (or other sources for that matter) and with the comment that children are very aware of a lot of things that they are not given credit for knowing. Yet I still think that the library should be a place for intellectual development and not for inquiry that may offend others. For example, I worked in a library for six years and for about a year I worked in the reference department. Part of my job was to make sure that the computer screens were cleared of web pages from the day before. Everyday, I would always have to shut down a web page with some type of pornographic material, which really personally upset me because sometimes older people would come in the library in the morning and expect me to “explain” why the computers contained such information. Although filters may be viewed as an “impingement” on patron’s rights, I think that patrons needs to be aware of the libraries mission of wanting to help further intellectual inquiry. Almost every child (and family) these days, have a computer in their home, which I am sure may not be filtered (in most cases). With that said, people should also be able to get information elsewhere. Also providing computers with and without filters and making patrons aware of this, could be one resolution. And those who do not have computers luckily have places like libraries and school to allow them access to the web. Installing filters, I think, shows that the library is taking some type of social and professional responsibility.
Because children, or people in general are exposed to so much, and in some cases, information, especially, entertainment information that influences, how and what we should be “doing, thinking and looking like,” the library in my opinion should be a place that encourages an environment to help develop individualistic identity by being a place of proving well thought out intellectual material of varying authors works that allows for continual intellectual development of new ideas.
For my library visit paper I have attended two places, Rochester Hills public Library and University of Michigan at Dearborn Library. In the public library there are sections for Children, Adults and Teens. In the children section filters were placed on the computers, in the teens sections light filters were placed and the adult section was unfiltered. As I interviewed the director of RHPL she had the same opinion as Kimberly and Jessica, she claimed that those filters are working well and it is not the government who imposed this policy on their library. Actually what they get is just 2 to 3% of government financial support.
Decision makers at UM Dearborn had the same opinion as Sarah that “the only filter is the HUMAN MIND” and Jensen said “only freedom is the freedom to discipline ourselves”. What UM administrator claimed is that filters do not work properly “we have placed filters and they did not function properly” and it takes too much effort to maintain this process. I think that due to the library type which is academic where most clients are adults, they may have removed the filters; even though that any citizen including children can walk in and access the internet as a guest.
Jensen, M. (Summer2004). Internet Filtering and its Effects on Intellectual Freedom. PNLA Quarterly, 68(4), 13-15.
Carla,
The University of Michigan-Dearborn was the library that I visited for the library visit assignment as well. During the interview that I had with one of the library department heads, they mentioned that the library do not and never had filters because of "the limits it may place on the research process of the inquiring college student" so I am surprised that they actually did . Nevertheless, I agree, by touring the computer area, anyone could have access to the library's computers.
Tiffany,
I am so surprised because in my visit I talked to the system administrator and he said that they have placed filters before but they have removed them later. You are right anyone could access the library’s computers, I have tried it by myself; I was able to access the computer using a guest account.
Sarah,
In answer to your question, my understanding is that the computers are facing the desk in order for staff to "filter" any porn that patrons may be trying to view. Graphic pornographic pictures, or as my supervisor describes it: "full frontal nudity" are dealt with by telling the patron to close the screen and warning the patron that if we see images like that again, he or she will be asked to leave. If I see text on the screen, there is really nothing that I can do, and it is very difficult to actually see what the patrons are reading on a screen unless they ask for help and I walk over to their computer to troubleshoot. Does that help?
I toured the Livonia Public Library's Civic Center, and they had computers in their children's area that had filters. The internet computers in the adult area were unfiltered, and not even in view of staff, which I found interesting.
I don't think that librarians should have to police patrons for copyright violations. Nor can librarians be lawyers. Copyright law is complicated. I probably would not involve myself in such a situation. If I believe that a patron is heading done that murky road toward copyright violation I might say "this item is under copyright" or "if you are unsure about copyright laws here are some links to information" or "here is a handout". At least this would get them to think about what they are doing. If you worked at a bookstore and saw someone violating copyright would you say something? Here's the ALA page on copyright.
http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/woissues/copyrightb/copyright.cfm
Though I respect some of my classmates opinions on censorship as a useful tool to prohibit minors from being unexpectedly exposed to pornography in libraries it is unlawful in the highest degree. It has already been discussed that our rights as citizens to unfettered, uncensored information is guaranteed by the first and fourth amendments to the Constitution. Censorship filters also violate the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights Article 19. Which states that, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." The purpose of guaranteed rights is that they won't be infringed upon by others ideals or opinions. They are the inherent right of every citizen regardless of the opinions or views of the librarians in the libraries they frequent.
The Federal Government has repeatedly tried to erode these guaranteed rights by various legislations, but has always been on the losing end of the ensuing court litigation. February 8, 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Communications Decency Act (CDA). "Under the CDA American citizens would be prosecuted if they were found guilty of intentionally transmitting obscene or indecent material through the internet. The ACLU immediately challenged the CDA." (Bissonnette) The ACLU won a rather easy court decision on June 6, 1997. The Supreme Court said this on the issue: "We are persuaded that the CDA lacks the precision that the First Amendment requires when a statute regulates the content of speech. In order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address one another. That burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve." On June 25, 1998 the Internet Filtering Systems: A Report of the Committee on Science and Transportation was published spearheaded by Senator John McCain. This legislation stated that schools and libraries would not receive Federal funds if they did not implement filtering software. This legislation was also subsequently shot down in the courts.
In 2002 the International Federation of Library Associations had this to say about internet censorship, "Intellectual freedom is the right of every individual both to hold and express opinions and to seek and receive information; it is the basis of democracy; and it is at the core of library service. Freedom of access to information, regardless of medium and frontiers, is a central responsibility of the library and information profession. The provision of unhindered access to the Internet by libraries and information services supports communities and individuals to attain freedom, prosperity and development. Barriers to the flow of information should be removed, especially those that promote inequality, poverty, and despair."
So we must be very careful in letting our own personal opinions shape the way our libraries will operate, in particular when those opinions are contrary to our Constitution, the UN, and the IFLA. No one wants kids to be exposed to porn in our libraries, but at what expense is that luxury afforded?
Bissonette, Susan Travis (2003). "Smothering Free Speach: Filtering the World Wide Web." Journal of Library Administration, 39(2/3), pg 87
As a future librarian, I would protect patrons from the Patriot Act by storing as little patron information as possible. I like the way Mary's library handles their internet sign in sheets by shredding them at the end of the day. This way, if and when the government comes knocking, libraries simply have minimal information to give.
If my library was using RFID technology, I would want to be extra careful that the computer system is secure against hackers.
Libraries that use RFID tags to check out books need to be careful that this technology does not pose a threat to patron privacy. Muir points out that RFID readers can "read" from varying distances, are relatively inexpensive and easy to procure. (2007, p.97).There is also the possibility (however remote) that someone could scan a list of "suspicious" books and identify who is reading them based on RFID tags.
I do not know if libraries have "total hegemony" over their materials, but I know that libraries have usage agreements and copyright laws that they have to abide by. I do not "police" people's use of the materials at my library, nor do I give out information on how to violate copyright laws. (I am thinking of a situation when someone asks how to download a movie from the internet, for example.)
I do feel that I am fairly ignorant about copyright law, and I wonder how many people who currently work in a library setting have been given extensive training on this topic as part of their job.
Muir, Scott (2007). RFID security concerns. Library Hi Tech, 25 (1), 95-107.
In response to discussion question one, I can say that I am definitely a supporter of the US Patriot Act because I think that it helps law enforcement and the government with protecting citizens from the consequences of the misuse of information for harmful purposes, by being a way for those individual who are suspect of such possible malicious actions, to be identified and prevented from such intentions. Although I can see why the Patriot Act can be perceived as a way for government to jeopardize democracy by; enabling access to a person’s private documents, it should be considered that there really is no such thing as record privacy. When we as individual go to the doctor, make credit card purchases, or anything of the sort that requires disclosing personal information, there is always a chance that these records can be viewed (which they are initially, take hospital records for example, which are viewed by nurses, doctors, then the billing department and insurance companies to determine if they will cover the hospital purpose and so forth) and used unfavorably especially when the information falls in the “hands” of the “wrong” person who can use the information to do harm.
I remember coming across a source that discussed how academic library computers were used by terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks and I think if these patrons library use was investigated based on terrorist suspicion then this would have helped law enforcement to possibly prevent such an event from happening. With that stated, as a future librarian I would disclose a patrons information to law enforcement (after validating the situation by finding out their purpose and intention and confirming if they are actually FBI officials with a court order to do so) in order to uphold the social responsibility aspect of the profession. Nevertheless, I see the positive effects that this act can have for citizens and the prevention of terrorism, yet I am aware that there are those who disagree.
According to the White House website about the Patriot Act,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/patriotact/
• The Patriot Act has helped law enforcement break up terror cells in Ohio, New York, Oregon, and Virginia.
• The Patriot Act [also] has helped in the prosecution of terrorist operatives and supporters in California, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois Washington, and North Carolina.
Moreover, I found an interesting article (http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_12/matthews/index.html) about how librarians across the country provided a lot of support to citizens in regards to coping with the aftermath of 9/11 and who also helped law enforcement during this time. When the ALA found out what these librarians were doing, the organization began to discourage these librarians to not disclose any information to law enforcement about anyone based on suspicion which cased these libraries, who were so helpful, to began to not provide information about 9/11 or any more resources to its patrons.
The following link is for another article that also discusses how libraries helped out during this crisis and how libraries are capable of collectively creating social capital based on their response efforts to 9/11.
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA180511.html
mary v. said ... (in part) "I am not sure whether or not the Patriot Act has cut down on the number of terrorist acts, and the government is certainly not going to broadcast it as they would be giving out information that could affect national security."
The very nature of the law means we'll never know whether it's working or not. If there are no terrorist acts, does that mean it's effective? Or does that mean, simply, that there have been no acts of terrorism. There were no terrorist acts for most of the years before the PATRIOT Act (and let's remember it's a ridiculious acronym, and therefore should be at least capitalized, if not periodized ala P.A.T.R.I.O.T.).
Does it even really work as a deterrent? Or does it just force folks who plan acts of unkindness to be more careful about their planning (not like they're likely to drop the whole thing just because they can't check books out of the library). And by pushing those who truly intend bad further underground, the only people who are likely to get sniffed out by the PATRIOT act are folks who're doing reasonable research.
tiffany c. pointed out "evidence" that it does work .... But the fact that whitehouse.gov has a 'fact sheet' (outside politics it would be called what it is, a "press release") that says "Patriot Act has helped law enforcement do x" doesn't inspire any confidence in me. Accepting that line requires the same faith that they expect of us when they say "we only spy on bad people" and "if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to fear". Just words, and in (essentially) an advertisement.
I also think that if academic (and public) library computers and accounts are data-mined for 'potential terroristic information requests' you'd get a lot of false positives. On the other hand, the government would have an excellent excuse for imprisioning potential rabble rousers (liberal thinkers, academics, librarians, general dissenters, and other un-PATRIOTs). At the very least, you'd get the start of a nice "Watch-list".
Jeremy,
What can you do if your library director decides to place filters on the computers? Would you accept to work in such environment where your ethics and believes contradicts with your institution’s policy?
There is still a debate over the usage of RFID technology in libraries and its effect on patrons’ privacy. People state that library “RFID tags do not contain any patron information, and that the tags used in the majority of libraries use a frequency only readable from approximately ten feet.” Others state that it does have an effect over the users’ privacy. If interested about RFID technology follow this ALA link to provide you with more information on its usage at libraries.
http://www.ala.org/ala/pla/plapubs/technotes/rfidtechnology.cfm
Jessica K. said “As a future librarian, I do not feel the censorship is appropriate. I do, however, believe in age-appropriateness. Therefore, if a book contains questionable content, and is placed in the Children's Section, it may be a wise decision to evaluate the book and if necessary, relocate it to the Young Adult or Adult sections. I don't feel that this would be censorship because the patrons would still have access to the book. “
I agree and feel that this is a good solution. This method would allow the book to be available, but it would reduce the chances of a patron stumbling across a book that would be inappropriate for them.
Russell,
I definitely see your side and respect your view on the Patriot Act issue. And I do think that it would be a hassle for anyone who was simply doing research on “suspicious” subjects, to be accused of such crimes when in fact they just were simply inquiring intellectually. Although I understand the anonymity and security aspects in regards to this subjects (but is this even relevant when as individuals we have to supply personal information in order to get a library card that’s stored in libraries computers that are also subject to being possibly “computer hacked”) but what I do not understand is why so many people see this act as a threat to privacy; if a person is “innocent” of any suspicious activity, why not feel “confident” about being questioned about your choices based on the fact that it is not a personal act to make a person feel “uncomfortable” but merely an act of overall concern for citizens (hopefully). I honestly do not think that law enforcement spend as much time as perceived “plotting” to bring down citizens based on their library records or any records for that matter (in order to take away their “rights” especially when information about everyone is always recorded before we’re born and until we die). But I do think that these records could help law enforcement find names and locations of people who may be involved in such activities. Moreover, if someone checks out say “twenty or more books” on how to make a “bomb”, for example, I think that it should be obvious that they want to know how to make one, and I am sure want to “test out the final product” or explain or improve how to do so (Russell my above comments are not in any way directed at you personally). After doing some research about the Patriot Act in order to better understand the subject personally, a lot of the information out was really geared negatively toward the subject, so I attempted to find some “evidence” to some positive results of this act. The following are a few articles that discussed how the act has helped identify or prevent terrorism from occurring:
9/11 Hijackers Used Other Library. Norman Oder. Library Journal. New York: June 1, 2005 Vol. 130, Iss. 10; pg. 20, 2 pgs
Libraries Say Officials Do Not Make Inquiries. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom. Chicago: Sep 2005. Vol. 54, Iss. 5; pg. 210, 2 pgs
Nevertheless, I would like to find out if any procedures were created in order to help librarians address a situation about a patrons library records being “demanded” from law enforcement.
Several posters have mentioned that they would advocate using filters on their libraries computers. Most of them have also stated that they agree that filters don't always work or work well.
Personally, I don't think filters are reliable. However, I think it is important for a library to have them available for the patrons that want them. With today's smart card technology it would be relatively simple to let patrons decide what they want access to. Also, this gives the decision on whether or not to filter to the parents of minors who need to sign off on their library card/computer use application.
It is also a great idea to have the computer use policy displayed as the opening screen on the computer when the patron accesses it. This would keep the usage information available to them so they would always be aware of the policies. I also liked the policy mentioned previously of having the computers in view of library staff to avoid public displays of nudity onscreen.
A good final precaution would be to wipe the computer after each patron logs off of it. If the computers are set to open on the libraries computer use policy and then go to a basic desktop of available applications and have the internet open to the libraries webpage there is no way inappropriate information can be left onscreen. Also, this would help protect patron’s privacy.
Holly,
You posed some good points but I have a question for you. You said "If the computers are set to open on the libraries computer use policy and then go to a basic desktop of available applications and have the internet open to the libraries webpage there is no way inappropriate information can be left onscreen"; my question is how would the screen be cleared if say the person forgets to log off? (This is why I think that so many people may support the use of filters, to protect others who leave inappropriate information on computers). Moreover, to clarify one of my previous post, I would install filters at a library (on some computers, not all), if I had to make this decision, only if the filters were of the "better" quality as some articles have discussed, and depending on the libraries budget. If the library could only afford the filters that are the least reliable, then I would not require those to be installed and would come up with other ways to make the library computer policy known and ensure that the library computers are being used "appropriately."
tiffany c. said, "I do not understand is why so many people see this act as a threat to privacy; if a person is 'innocent' of any suspicious activity, why not feel 'confident' about being questioned about your choices based on the fact that it is not a personal act to make a person feel 'uncomfortable' but merely an act of overall concern for citizens (hopefully)."
That's a sentiment I've been seeing quite a lot, and one that I find particularly troublesome. Generally I hear it boiled down to "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about". I've got a lot of problems with that 'logic'.
If someone checks out twenty or more books on how to make a bomb, it could be that they're writing a novel in which bombs are a major factor. Or maybe they're writing a script about a bomb squad. Or perhaps they're not researching bombs at all, but something peripheral to bombmaking, such as an aspect of electronics frequently used in bombs. The point is, it's none of the governments business what I'm looking up, nor is it their business why I'm looking it up.
But because I've been researching bombmaking for my thriller novel Red Wire, Green Wire, I'm now on a secret watchlist. My phone is being tapped, my being email read, my friends' phones are tapped, their email read, and no one has asked me why I'm reading about bombmaking (because, if I'm a terrorist, that would tip me off that I'm being watched). I've looked at information that makes me sufficiently suspect. Then, perhaps I try to fly out to my friend's wedding in L.A. only to discover I've been put on a no-fly list. But there's no being told why: it's all secret, all for the greater good.
My point, really, is this: If there's a justifiable cause for looking into a person's library behavior, then the government should be able and required to prove it in court. And if the government is going to dig into my library records, I should be able to find out about it.
Is that really such an extreme position?
Mary,I like the fact that your library keeps the information regaring computer users only for statistical purposes and then shred the papers. My question is, why do you even need to have them sign in? Is there a way to get the data that you need without them supplying their name?
I'm just curious and interested to see if there are extra steps that we could take to protect the privacy of our patrons.
2. As a librarian do you think that placing censorship is appropriate? Why? If you are the decision maker in your library, would you place filters?
I think there is a way to move/filter certain information from patrons (for instance, children) without having to go as far as completely censoring it. There are just too many other options there than that.
3. How would you behave in case of a patron violating the copyright rules in front of you?
I would explain to them what the copyright laws were. It could be possible that they may not have a full understanding of them and in doing so, I would think it would make them think twice about what they were doing.
Some people have mentioned the unfiltered computers having the screens facing staff so they can keep an eye on what is being viewed. I have heard of the opposite happening as well so whatever is being viewed does not need to be viewed by all other patrons. The unfiltered computers are placed with the screens facing the walls and some with privacy screens to further protect others. Unfortunately, porn is not prohibited in all public libraries.
Here is a link to an article in Sacramento where patrons are allowed to visit porn sites while at the public library. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54016
The article does not state how their library computers are set up, but I would much rather have these set up with the screens against the walls with privacy screens considering the situation.
First of all as a librarian the library’s policies have to be implimented. In making sure that the library policies are followed by patrons suspicion is limitted as to who is doing what in the library. If individuals know they have to go by specific rules to get information, they will becareful about what they search for through the library. Besides the librarians have to make sure in acquiring any information sources and resources for the library they do not get anything thar could be incriminating. Terrorism did not stem from the library neither did the plan for the september 11th incident. If information is not got from the library it could be got from anywhere else. Besidespeople get training but decide how to use the skills they have acquired. So the Patriot Act is trying to but we can not tellas attacks are not planned in a day.
As the decision maker in the library I will place filters in the children’s section. This will be to help keep them on the right track regarding the future. It is better for the not to carry the wrong ideas from an educational environment. It true that we can’t hide the truth of the obscene and danger we live in,, but we can help this children who will change the society tomorrow. Besides children pick up wrong things faster before they get to their teen ages. Also young adults as well as adults could be influenced to try out some things because they read about them on the net, which makes them correct. I had a friend who just saw a site talking about tattoos, how they are done and likes to scar her body till today; virtually addictively. She even wants to find out what it feels like to be a lesbian. These are things that can be copied by anybody. Moreover, terrorist ideas can also be picked up from web pages
In the case where a library has security, they could be called to intervene when a patron refuses to be stopped from doing something wrong. A patron could come in to a library and do photocopy of a whole book for several reasons. If assumed for copyright this could strain librarian/ patron relationship. Also a patron could do the copying where the librarian cannot see them. Here the librarian has little or no control and all they can do is report to higher authority in the library. The librarian can keep track of all copy right material in the library to better handle them, but with the number of books and documents the librarian can only do so much surveying.
First of all as a librarian the library’s policies have to be implimented. In making sure that the library policies are followed by patrons suspicion is limitted as to who is doing what in the library. If individuals know they have to go by specific rules to get information, they will becareful about what they search for through the library. Besides the librarians have to make sure in acquiring any information sources and resources for the library they do not get anything thar could be incriminating. Terrorism did not stem from the library neither did the plan for the september 11th incident. If information is not got from the library it could be got from anywhere else. Besidespeople get training but decide how to use the skills they have acquired. So the Patriot Act is trying to but we can not tellas attacks are not planned in a day.
As the decision maker in the library I will place filters in the children’s section. This will be to help keep them on the right track regarding the future. It is better for the not to carry the wrong ideas from an educational environment. It true that we can’t hide the truth of the obscene and danger we live in,, but we can help this children who will change the society tomorrow. Besides children pick up wrong things faster before they get to their teen ages. Also young adults as well as adults could be influenced to try out some things because they read about them on the net, which makes them correct. I had a friend who just saw a site talking about tattoos, how they are done and likes to scar her body till today; virtually addictively. She even wants to find out what it feels like to be a lesbian. These are things that can be copied by anybody. Moreover, terrorist ideas can also be picked up from web pages
In the case where a library has security, they could be called to intervene when a patron refuses to be stopped from doing something wrong. A patron could come in to a library and do photocopy of a whole book for several reasons. If assumed for copyright this could strain librarian/ patron relationship. Also a patron could do the copying where the librarian cannot see them. Here the librarian has little or no control and all they can do is report to higher authority in the library. The librarian can keep track of all copy right material in the library to better handle them, but with the number of books and documents the librarian can only do so much surveying.
First of all as a librarian the library’s policies have to be implimented. In making sure that the library policies are followed by patrons suspicion is limitted as to who is doing what in the library. If individuals know they have to go by specific rules to get information, they will becareful about what they search for through the library. Besides the librarians have to make sure in acquiring any information sources and resources for the library they do not get anything thar could be incriminating. Terrorism did not stem from the library neither did the plan for the september 11th incident. If information is not got from the library it could be got from anywhere else. Besidespeople get training but decide how to use the skills they have acquired. So the Patriot Act is trying to but we can not tellas attacks are not planned in a day.
As the decision maker in the library I will place filters in the children’s section. This will be to help keep them on the right track regarding the future. It is better for the not to carry the wrong ideas from an educational environment. It true that we can’t hide the truth of the obscene and danger we live in,, but we can help this children who will change the society tomorrow. Besides children pick up wrong things faster before they get to their teen ages. Also young adults as well as adults could be influenced to try out some things because they read about them on the net, which makes them correct. I had a friend who just saw a site talking about tattoos, how they are done and likes to scar her body till today; virtually addictively. She even wants to find out what it feels like to be a lesbian. These are things that can be copied by anybody. Moreover, terrorist ideas can also be picked up from web pages
In the case where a library has security, they could be called to intervene when a patron refuses to be stopped from doing something wrong. A patron could come in to a library and do photocopy of a whole book for several reasons. If assumed for copyright this could strain librarian/ patron relationship. Also a patron could do the copying where the librarian cannot see them. Here the librarian has little or no control and all they can do is report to higher authority in the library. The librarian can keep track of all copy right material in the library to better handle them, but with the number of books and documents the librarian can only do so much surveying.
Censorship is never appropriate. The purpose of a library is to provide unhindered access to information. Filters and overly selective purchasing harm the patron.
If a patron violated copyright laws, I would probably do nothing. If they were copy/pasting into a term paper from random websites, I would approach them. That's probably just the journalist in me though...
As a librarian do you think that placing censorship is appropriate? Why? If you are the decision maker in your library, would you place filters?
No, I do not think that censorship is appropriate. I do believe there are passive forms of censorship, censorship that we are unaware of, but the most dangerous censorship is the active type. When it becomes our agenda to prevent people from getting information I believe that type of censorship is completely inappropriate.
If I were the decision maker in the library would I place filters?
I guess it depends on the library. I believe that in a public library it is against the law not to have filters on the children's computers. I would not have filters on the adult computers. Also, if it were an academic setting I would not put filters on the computers. During my library visit I asked the librarian at the community college I was visiting if they had filters and she said no because everyone that uses the computers are adults and should be treated as such.
1. As a future librarian, I will do my best to make I provide patrons with services that are guaranteed to them through the First Admendment and the Library Bill of Rights. This is not to say that I would ignore the Patriotic Act. I would look to my fellow librarians as to how that follow a careful balancing act between the two. As far as the Patriotic Act minimizing terriost attacks, I don't believe so. People are very savvy and will find different ways to cut across laws in order to establish their goals or commit acts that they find neccessary or essential to their cause. Again, just because you make something illegal doesn't make individuals stop commitin the act.
2. Censorship is a tricky topic because who decides what to censor and the criteria that is used to censor items. As a librarian, I would follow the guidlines set in place when it comes to ordering materials and items for patrons to use. I don't believe it is a librarian place to censor items because it denies patron's access to that material. One of the duties of librarian, is to provide patrons with access to information not decide for them what information they can have. As far as filters, I am somewhat conflicted. When it comes to children, my first instinct is to allow filters in order to help make the information they are allowed to see age appropriate. As I did some further research, I find out filters are not as effective as they should be. Filters fail on different levels by overblocking pieces of information, failing to block many cities that contain porn or obscence images, not distinguishing between ages, and being expensive to maintain over time. At the public school I work for, we have filters in place. In spite of the filters, many of the students are computer savvy and sill able to see images and go to sites that are pornographic and conatin lewd/ obscence images.
3. I would follow the guidelines in that my library had in place for dealing with patrons who violate copyright laws. As a librarian when it comes to copyrighted material follow Title 17 U.S.C Section 108. This is the U.S. Code Collection that was passed by Congress as of January 2, 2006. It provides detailed information about the law that libraries have to follow when it comes to copyrighted material.
Kranich, Nancy. Why Filters Won't Protect Children or Adults. Library Adminstration and Management. Volume 18, Number 1 (Winter 2004) p.14-18
As far as concerning the copyright section like Tory has mentioned, I would follow as well the copyright law. As a librarian my duty is to ensure as much as possible appropriate use of the materials. But sometimes this issue falls beyond our limits; what if a patron check out a book and go make another copy of the whole book outside the library? We will never be able to know…
The following link provides the information about the copyright law applicable to the libraries:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108
1. As a librarian, I don’t think there is much I can do about the Patriot Act. If the FBI comes to my library with the proper paper work and demands information, then so be it. I will comply. If my patrons express concerns I will do my best to assuage their fears. I will tell them that they should continue to check out whatever materials they want and search for whatever information they want and to not worry about what others (e.g. the government) think. They’re not doing anything wrong so they shouldn’t worry.
Do I think that this act has succeeded in minimizing terrorist attacks? I could take a guess and say no; however, it is difficult to measure the efficacy of agencies that often operate in secrecy (e.g. FBI and CIA). Only time will tell. Although, I would think that if the government has proof that accessing library records has deterred terrorism or prevented an attack from occurring, they would want to publicize it.
2. As a librarian I do not think censorship is appropriate. Patrons can check out or search for whatever they want- it’s not my place to judge. Either it’s all okay or nothing is. Naturally, if parents want to censor what they’re children have access to, I’ll oblige because that is their duty as a parent.
I would put filters on the computer because I wouldn’t want my library to lose government funding (it’s hard to get that kind of money from other sources!). I don’t really like filters because they don’t work well. I would probably only put them on certain computers (such as in the children’s section) or make it an option (e.g. it can be turned on or off).
3. I would politely inform the patron of the law. Chances are he was not aware of the nuances of copyright law. If it became a problem I would probably make a sign for the copier area stating the gist of the law.
As a librarian what would you do to protect your library from the Patriotic Act effect’s on both your library and your patrons? Do you think that this act has succeeded in minimizing the terrorist attacks as deemed by the government?
I came across several excellent resources to help librarians deal with the Patriot Act when I was working on our ethical scenario assignment. It is important for libraries to have written policies in place that explicitly state what patron data is collected, how it is used, and how long it is retained. It's also a good idea to keep information for as short a time as possible (e.g., only keeping circulation records until materials have been returned). (Magi, Trina. (2007). “Protecting library patrons’ confidentiality: Checklist of best practices.” ILA Reporter 25 (6), 15-16.)
Libraries also need written policies indicating how staff members are to respond when faced with government subpoenas or information requests.
As a librarian do you think that placing censorship is appropriate? Why? If you are the decision maker in your library, would you place filters?
I think censorship that restricts access to materials to all users is unacceptable, but I understand the arguments others have made for placing materials in age-appropriate sections. As for filters, I would obviously first comply with federal and state laws. Beyond that, I'm inclined to offer both filtered stations and non-filtered stations. Parents who want their children to have filtered access should have that option, but it's inappropriate to force filters on all users.
How would you behave in case of a patron violating the copyright rules in front of you? Do you think that librarians have total hegemony over copyrighted materials placed at their libraries?
If I saw it happening, I'd use it as a teachable moment and explain copyright law and why it's important. As information professionals, we should be responsible for protecting intellectual property rights when it's practical for us to do so.
As a librarian what would you do to protect your library from the Patriotic Act effect’s on both your library and your patrons? Do you think that this act has succeeded in minimizing the terrorist attacks as deemed by the government?
It is always important to protect your patrons the best that you can. I just think it is important not to pass patrons information all over the place. I don't think we will ever really know if the act is helping or not.
As a librarian do you think that placing censorship is appropriate? Why? If you are the decision maker in your library, would you place filters?
I have so many mixed feelings about filters I cannot honestly answer the question right now on if I would place filters on computers. Some censorship for certain ages I think is important I would not want my young children looking at something that is appropiate for an adult.
How would you behave in case of a patron violating the copyright rules in front of you? Do you think that librarians have total hegemony over copyrighted materials placed at their libraries?
I think all that I could do is warn a patrons about the laws of copyrighting. If they are adults, adults can make their own decisions.
3. How would you behave in case of a patron violating the copyright rules in front of you?
I believe that as librarians, we are not in the business of law enforcement. Our job is to provide individuals with information. Of course, the knowledge of copyright law is very important information, with which we may want to provide our patrons, perhaps in the form of a sign notifying them of the law. Then if patrons, being readily supplied with the knowledge of the law, should choose to engage in unlawful activity... well, to be honest, I would probably do nothing. I don't call the cops when I see someone speeding or littering, and I probably won't call them on someone making illegal copies. I think in this situation, the best thing we can really do is provide the public with information and hope they choose to be responsible with it.
I belive in age appropriate materal in the children's section and filters on their computers. I would put filters on all the computers to ward off porn. If a patron was trying to view a site that was filtered but not porn I would click off that filter for that person. I belive in another section I read that one's person's library had a filter but people can click it off but dont. I like that idea.
As a librarian, there isn't a whole lot you can do about the Patriot Act when the government is standing at your door with a subpoena. Other than that, I will still encourage people to utilize our facility and exercise their right to free information.
At the library I was just hired at, the computers clear their browsing history and record of use each and every and every evening when the library closes. Which, in my opinion, is a great step toward protecting patron privacy. An issue I haven't had a chance to ask about yet is the check-out histories of patrons. I was briefly told that I can't look up a patron's history as it isn't stored anywhere. But, I am wondering if the government can somehow track through our computer system the past checkouts. As far as I understand, we can only track (and keep record of) what is currently checked out on a patron's account.
Once an item is checked in, the record is deleted of who had it checked out.
In reference to internet filters, I can see both sides of the argument. I certainly wouldn't want my child to have access to porn in a public library. However, I wouldn't want their access to valuable resources to be stifled. I find it is the parent or guardian's responsibility to censor and guide their child's access to books, internet sites, and dvds. I wouldn't put that responsibility in the government or a librarian's hands. But, I also wouldn't be the patron who drops their child off at a library for 5 hours with no supervision.
I don't believe that filters should be used at all for adult patrons. I believe that they should be responsible for the information they access. My library has the internet use policy plastered on the screen and must be accepted before a patron can even sign into the computers. In bold lettering, the policy clearly states that pornography will not be tolerated, and that the library will not be responsible for filtering all possible sites that may upset some users.
I think when it comes to tough issues such as censorship and copyright, although fundamentally one may not agree, librarians should follow the letter of the law. It is always difficult to decide what is right for one person. Yet if you have something that is offensive to one person that isn't that enough? I know we often fault on the side of the greater good, but sometimes one is enough to justify a hard decision such as censorship.
“Sylvia R. said… Censorship is never appropriate. The purpose of a library is to provide unhindered access to information. Filters and overly selective purchasing harm the patron.”
Sylvia, I could not agree with you more. I am against censorship and filters. I am lucky to work for an academic library that does not have filters on any of their computers. We rarely have problems with pornography or any other inappropriate internet viewing. On those rare occasions that we have problems we simply ask the patron to stop or leave. We can also show them our internet use policy that clearly states that patrons can not view pornography on our computers. Filters block many websites that are full of useful information on topics such as health. For a large number of people their only access to the internet is at the library and this number of people is growing everyday due to the current economy. To take away their right to unfettered information is unconstitutional.
How would you behave in case of a patron violating the copyright rules in front of you?
Hopefully, my organization has policies to enforce when such a thing is occuring. I would inform the patron that they are violating copyright law and give them a chance to remedy thier actions. If the patron refuses to comply I would involve my superior and let them take action to correct the problem or report the patron.
Do you think that librarians have total hegemony over copyrighted materials placed at their libraries?
Librarians do not have total leadership over the copyrighted amterials but they are certainly not above the law. Librarians should not violate copyright laws or allow patrons to do so.
Librarians have professional and ethical responsibilities to keep involving copyright and
fair use rights. This responsibility applies to the library’s own online publications, contractual
obligations with authors and publishers,written media, all electronic media, and informing library users of copyright laws (ala, 2000)
Access to Electronic Information, Services and Networks:. (2000, November 17). Retrieved March 28, 2008, from http://http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/interpretations/ qandaaccess.pdf
I think the Patriot Act is a bit overzelous and was enacted at a time when our country was vulnerable. Having said that, we haven't heard much from our government in terms of how the Patriot ACt has reduced terrorist attacks; so what's the point of having it?
Putting in the context of libraries, as a librarian, I would stand in opposition to the PAtriot ACt in order to protect my patrons and their right to enjoy any sort of content that they want to (minus anything illegal).
In terms of filters, ridiculous to think that a few filters will hinder any one who wants truly wants to do something illegal. Those same filters effect library patrons who are doing general research or simply browsing the internet.
Like James said, the Patriot Act was adopted at a time that out country was vulnerable, and I also find it interesting that out of the few websites, Tiffany, that you could find for positive feedback on the Act , one of them was the government itself. It just makes me a little leery of the the source; of course the issuer of the law will support it. The following is from Justice Department Reports on the Patriot Act.
[ACLU Executive Director] Anthony Romero said the attorney general's report never mentions controversial section 213 of the act, which expanded federal access to so-called "sneak and peek" search warrants. He added: "The expanded powers of the government to gather personal records, including library records and medical information, (are) also ignored. And while lawmakers and the ACLU have made repeated requests to find out how, exactly, the act has been used, the attorney general leaves those questions unanswered."
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/07/13/195/97982
Whatever my personal opinion, however, my duties as librarian and a citizen of this country may be in conflict. A librarian promises to protect the rights and privacies of his/ her patrons, nut if the government arrives with a subpoena, you are required to comply. It makes me have great respect for those journalists who have held in contempt for refusing to reveal their confidential sources. Like many of you, I like Mary's job's manner of handling the situation; after the numbers are crunched, the sign up sheets are shredded. If their is no patron information o hand over, the library is not breaking the law.
As far as censorship is concerned, I too believe it has no place in a library, where the mission is for free and unbiased access to information. However, I understand the "age-appropriate" comments from many of the posters. Removing a questionable book from the children's to the adult section seems like a reasonable compromise. As long as the item in question is still available for patrons, I suppose that would be a better situation than removing it from the library altogether.
2. As a librarian do you think that placing censorship is appropriate? Why? If you are the decision maker in your library, would you place filters?
I think this really depends on what type of library that you are working in. In the public library there shouldn't be too many filters on the computers if any at all. I can see filtering pornography sites if that is a preference of the library.
However, in a school library filters are essential. I've seen firsthand how the students work in a computer lab. Every chance they get, the students are looking up their email and other sites not school related at all. There is a filter on MySpace, Facebook and other sites, but there are still lots that are free for them to look at. This can cause a lot of problems for teachers that are trying to teach lessons and keep the students on task. But if the computers are just for out of class student work, there could be less filters. Computers have completely changed the way all libraries are run and this can be a major issue in almost any library.
Craver, K. School Library Media Centers in the 21st Century: Changes and Challenges. Retrieved from Google Scholar on 28 March 2008:http://blackboard.wayne.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_169_1
It is not easy to judge at a glance if a patron is truly violating Copyright Law. The rights of Fair Use are broad, and libraries open to the public have a large leeway. This being said, Janis Bruwelheide gives an example of copyright violation as “the systematic production of an entire book, such as a textbook, to avoid purchase.” (Bruwelheide, 1995, p. 17) The liability of the library in such a matter would be slim if certain procedures are followed. According to Section 108(f), copyright infringement cannot be imposed on libraries by patrons using unsupervised copy machines, if the library displays a notice stating that, “the making of copies may be subject to Copyright Law.” (Bruwelheide, 1995, p. 17) I feel that Librarians do have a obligation to protect copyrights, especially considering the freedom that we have in reproducing works under Fair Use making available to patrons.
Reference:
Bruwelheide, J. H., & Reed, M. H. (1995). The copyright primer for librarians and educators. Chicago: American Library Association.
I think that, in light of recent legislation, a librarian's best course of action is not to collect information in the first place. That way if the FBI comes knocking, there's no need to be subversive and it's possible to comply with law enforcement requests without compromising the patrons.
I think that materials in a library would have to be very extreme before the idea of censorship would appeal to me. In most cases, obscenity or controversy is in the eye of the beholder, and librarians should not attempt to hold this kind of power over patrons, nor should patrons try to take power over one another.
Finally, if I saw a patron violating copyright law, I feel that I would most likely inform them that they were breaking the law and the possible consequences, but I would not take it upon myself to act like a police officer. At my workplace there are stickers on the copy machines informing employees of the law and their responsibility. If someone then knowing breaks the law, in my opinion, that individual assumes the risk.
Like Jessica K, I think adults do not need nor want censorship. Children on the other hand do need more restrictions than adults, if only for their safety.
Adults should be able to access whatever they wish to view. Children need supervision, preferably by a parent. If a child wants to read something in an 'adult' section he or she should talk to his/her parents about it.
I dislike how librarians (and, often teachers as well) are pushed into taking over roles that should belong to parents.
Do you think that this act has succeeded in minimizing the terrorist attacks as deemed by the government?
Obviously, the government is the only agency that can answer this question. However, I really do question the efficacy of the Patriot Act in reducing terrorist threat. Maybe it's just me, but if I were a terrorist I would use other resources for gaining information on bombs, etc. Until last year, I always thought that libraries had vast patron circulation records. From that point of view, I would be afraid to check out "controversial" materials for fear of being tracked. But, I'm not a terrorist, so maybe I think differently. It seems that internet would be the method of choice for terrorists, not domestic libraries.
I think (to an extent) that the Patriot Act was passed as a way of "legally" spying on citizens. Perhaps great information has been obtained by the Act, but it seems to me that it wouldn't be the most effective method for tracking terrorist threats.
In response to Kimberley E.,
The branch of the library I am scheduled at this week has a brief explanation on the copy machines (for patrons) of copyright law. It clearly states that the patron making the copies is on their own legally if they choose to make copies of items that are covered by copyright law. I am not the police, I am merely library employee. I have enough other things that I have to do all day, and just don't have time to police the copy machine. Plus, in my area, if I were to call the police about copyright infringement I'm pretty sure they would laugh at me.
Post a Comment