Amendments contained within the U.S. Constitution protect the right to information. However, other laws often come into conflict with this principle. States have created privacy laws to protect the library patron, but the federal government has created legislation, such as the Patriot Act, which directly conflict with these laws. The laws conflicting with patron privacy are often created in the guise of protecting people from themselves (Internet Filters) and in the interest of state security (Patriot Act).
Privacy
The First and Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protect the rights of library patrons. The First Amendment protects the patron’s right to receive information anonymously. The Fourth Amendment protects the patron from unlawful search and seizure of personal records, such as library records. The American Library Association upholds the right of patrons to privacy and confidentiality in the ALA Code of Ethics. The Michigan’s Library Privacy Act dictates that library records cannot be released without the consent of the patron.
The USA Patriot Act has been accused of infringing upon the rights of patrons to freely access information anonymously. The USA Patriot Act is “Legislation passed in 2001 and reauthorized in 2006; various provisions expand the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to gain access to all types of records, including library records, stored electronic data, and electronic communications.” (Caldwell-Stone, 2007)
Internet Filtering
Filters can be disabled upon request of anyone over the age of 18. There has been controversy over the censorship of important information by filtering software. “Twenty-one states have Internet filtering laws that apply to public schools or libraries. The majority of these states simply require school boards or public libraries to adopt Internet use policies to prevent minors from gaining access to sexually explicit, obscene or harmful materials. However, some states also require publicly funded institutions to install filtering software on library public access terminals or school computers.” (National Conferences on State Legislatures, 2007) The United States Supreme Court upheld the Children’s Internet Protection Act in 2003. The American Library Association had challenged the act on the basis of infringing upon citizens’ right to free access of information. (McGuire, 2003)
Copyright Law Resources
On this website created by Cornell University, there is a simple chart that dictates what is still under copyright and what is now public domain. I found it interesting that even unpublished works are protected under copyright for the life of the author + 70 years.
Good Resource>>
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/
On GovTrack, you can search for bills related to copyright issues. It is in librarians’ best interest to stay aware of pending legislation.
Link>> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billsearch.xpd?PostFormID=billsearch&AutoPostbackField=&AutoPostbackValue=&AutoPostbackState=&q=copyright&session=110&chamber=&status=
Discussion Questions:
1) Watch this TED video>> http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/187
a. Discuss your reaction to the information presented by Larry Lessig.
2) What legal issues have you come across in your work setting?
3) What legislation is in opposition to library policies?
Further Reading:
There is a book titled “Library’s Legal Answer Book” that would be of use to a librarian with legal questions. It can be purchased from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Librarys-Legal-Answer-Book-Minow/dp/0838908284
Bibliography
Caldwell-Stone, D. (2007). Privacy and Confidentiality. Oregon Library Association Preconference. Salem, OR: Oregon Library Association.
McGuire, D. (2003, June 23). Supreme Court Upholds Internet Filters. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from Washingtonpost.com: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A22519-2003Jun23¬Found=true
National Conferences on State Legislatures. (2007, December 17). Children and the Internet: Laws Relating to Filtering, Blocking. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from NCSL: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/cip/filterlaws.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
May I have a link to this so I may read it? Or would someone send it in an email to me?
Caldwell-Stone, D. (2007). Privacy and Confidentiality. Oregon Library Association Preconference. Salem, OR: Oregon Library Association.
Thank you.
Oh, while I'm here, I have information on the topic of the blog here:
State & City CIPA Laws
I just need to update Alaska where one house was just approved CIPA-like filters 4-3.
safelibraries.org - Here is the link to the article:
http://www.olaweb.org/org/ifc.shtml
The government has its citizens in mind when it is setting laws, just like any other institution would. But these laws though for our own good still have shortcomings as they create handicaps. The Patriot Act violates the patrons’ privacy laws which definitely creates discomfort. Patrons have to be protected so the library has to keep their personal information private. The rights given to the FBI to search all library sources and records in my opinion is intruding on the library and patrons’ privacy. This to me the libraries should as for the government to reconsider this FBI’s rights. Not everyone who want to bring up something new will like to become a public figure. However, the law can protect the library without infringing into its privacy.
I couldn't disagree with Njang more, when she says that governments have their citizens in mind when making laws. I think we see over and over that this just is not the case, whether it is the Patriot Act or not signing the Kyoto Treaty, or going to war for select companies economic gains. As Larry Lessig says in the video clip there is a whole "economy of policy" which serves the interests of the lobbyists whether or not they run concurrent with those of the citizens of the country. Constituent's needs have been replaced by lobbyist funded junkets, campaign war chests, and just plain greed. In fact Zittrain and Edelman of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard have a study of just that, governments censoring material in direct conflict to their citizens’ intellectual wellbeing, and human rights. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=399920 Governments act in their own best interests whether it is Saudi Arabia blocking websites that could be classified as entertainment or China blocking all sites with dissenting political voices, or the Sudanese government whom are in the midst of a government sponsored genocide.
Libraries have a chance to be outside this culture of "economy of policy" by being havens of free and open information and creativity. Twain once said, “Nothing vital can ever flow from the pen that is strictly venal.” I think this wisdom can be applied to government agencies. Libraries are anything but venal, my local library has a Friends of group that raises resources for the library, when was the last time you saw a Friends group for the local road commission or the DMV, or Circuit Court? Libraries seem to be the last bastions of a government for the people by the people. The staunch opponents of this are those who look to profit from culture, those that attempt to label the majority of young culture consumers pirates. As Lessig said in his presentation, they are not going to stop; they will just be driven underground. So let us as librarians be the gatekeepers to the oracle of culture and not be pawns in the “economy of policy”.
Excellent video Sylvia. The whole "Read/Write" or "audience/creator" theme is so important. I am amazed at the creativity that exists on the internet by "amateurs" as he says. We all have a lot to say or express. Creativity is critical to having a culturally rich society. Copyright Law seems to barely take into account the reader or user. I agree with Lessig that there is a balance and I think that (his?) Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/ does that. Creators get to decide how their creations may be used. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future if it will be the norm for content creators to decide how the work can be used.
Jeremy - nicely stated. i would add, after recently reading 'Libricide' that the destruction of libraries by both political and economic forces can be viewed as a method of destroying a free and open society. When we lose our libraries, we lose our freedoms; another prefect reason to continue pushing the envelope and demanding free and open access to information.
I am with Jeremy R. on this one. I do not agree that the government has our best interest in mind either when they are making laws. The Patriot Act proves that to me. There is a great difference between "discomfort" inflicted on a patron and a "violation" of one's rights. There are just too many loop-holes in the law that make the latter possible.
Sylvia: I think you did a great job on this post. I found the copyright very interesting when I went to your links. As for internet filtering, I can definitely see where that would cause concern for adults with kids as well as place into question whether or not it is a matter of censorship. It seems like it would be a greatly gray area.
2) What legal issues have you come across in your work setting?
I work at a law firm and client confidentiality is very important. If a blood relative or spouse of a client calls in to inquire about the client's case, I cannot give them any specific information they may ask for and must be very general about any information I do give. The only way I can divulge more is if I have verbal permission from the client to speak with that person or copy of the relative's Power of Attorney for a client. Spouses sometimes get very upset when they are unable to change a client's address or find out when the next settlement check is coming, but keeping that information confidential is essential. There have been incidents where people listed as spouses in our files have called and we were unaware that the client had actually divorced them. To tell them when a payout was being sent or to allow them to change the client's address to their own could result in the ex-spouse intercepting a client's money. We are extremely careful about keeping our clients' information confidential.
I agree that the government does not have the best interest of its citizens in mind when making laws. Governments should exist to maintain order in a society, but there are limits to this power. Citizens need the freedom to pursue knowledge without the heavy hand of the government intervening in its acquisition.
Tim U. - TED is a wonderful site. The perspectives are often very fresh and unlike that of other media available.
I too agree with Jeremy’s post. Well put Jeremy.
Government doesn’t really act in the “people’s” best interest anymore (unless by accident). Unfortunately, most of the controlling factors in government today are influenced, if not run, by big business.
I do believe that most libraries are keeping their patrons in mind when deciding on policies and library content. Hopefully this will continue with the help of open-minded and strong-willed librarians.
I do not agree with Jeremy, Sylvia Tara who mentioned that the government does not take into consideration the citizen’s interests when making information policies. While I do not agree with the government imposing on public libraries to place filters in order not to lose funding, I am not against placing filters in the children’s section in those libraries taking into account that those filters function correctly. I think that when the government placed the Children’s Protection Act they aimed at protection children from accessing harsh materials. Another issue is the Patriot Act that was introduced after September 11, I think that the government tried to minimize the terrorist acts by placing such law; regardless if this law has succeeded in its aim and actually reduced the radical acts.
As Holly mentioned I believe as well that libraries are keeping their patrons in mind when deciding upon policies. After all, a library is a place where people get unrestricted access to information so a library does not exist without patrons.
The wide variety of comments posted on this blog and on our discussion board re: First Amendment rights, privacy, censorship, etc., re-emphasizes for me how important it is that each librarian/information provider have her/his own set of ‘guiding principles.' Ideally, the underpinnings for these principles would be the ALA Code of Ethics, ALA Library Bill of Rights, and applicable laws. In this mix, as well, are one’s personal beliefs and values. However, within this general legal and ‘ethical’ framework there may be conflicting perspectives so each person needs to, after due reflection, decide where s/he fits on the ‘continuum.’ Once one has a good idea of her/his professional and personal beliefs/values re: these issues it is, in my experience, useful to frame and codify them as a set of ‘guiding principles’ and check for inconsistencies that need to be reconciled in some way. In a way this is similar to what information policies do at the institutional level. Since it is often easy to be swayed by strong arguments on a particular issue that are presented ‘in the heat of the moment’ (such as ‘porn’ or racially charged materials) being able to refer back to one’s own ‘guiding principles’ (as well as the library's policies)helps keep us focused on the core beliefs that inform decision-making and action. In an interview for a job, years ago, I was once asked “what are your professional/personal non-negotiables?” (or words to that effect). I have found this question to be a useful one that can be applied in any number of situations. As we know, there may be times when one’s personal and professional beliefs, for example, conflict with information policies in such a way that one cannot simply go along with a decision or a policy. I think it is helpful, to the extent possible, to try to determine ahead of moments of crisis or conflict precisely what is ‘non-negotiable.’
2. I work in a juniors’ clothing store whose target demographic is teenage to 20-something females. As such, our District Manager and our former store manager wanted employees who fall within this demographic because they will better relate to the customer. They will screen applicants based on this, despite the fact that it violates equal employment opportunity laws. They would not even interview men or women older than 40. Recently our new store manager made a remark to our DM about a (highly qualified) male applicant she was considering calling for an interview. Our DM told her that we couldn’t hire men because they couldn’t go into the fitting room- as though we couldn’t put a male employee in a different area of the store!
What legal issues have you come across in your work setting?
Every few months we go over the proceeders for dealing with federal authorities in case they come in and want patrons records. We have certain steps that we have to take, we can't just hand over all the patrons information.
What legislation is in opposition to library policies?
Well some libraries have filters on their computers so the patrons cannot use the internet to their full advantage.
Thanks for that, Jeremy. Very well said.
As to legal issues I encounter on the job, copyright is the one I run into on a near constant basis. There's issues around digitization of documents, but that's the smaller part of the copyright issue. Working at an academic library means working with faculty who are interested in providing library materials to their students. Ideally, they'd like to provide these materials right on their Blackboard course sites (wouldn't it be nice to be able to access readings for this course directly from the course site, without having to bounce out to the library and sift through database and journal sites?). Before online course sites (and full-text online databases) were so common, I worked at the reserve desk. Even there the copyright issues were many, confusing, and oft ignored by faculty.
2) What legal issues have you come across in your work setting?
I work for a law firm, and one legal issue that we encounter on a daily basis is the Health Information Privacy Protection Act (HIPPA). Our firm primarily handles asbestos litigation defense, so we are constantly receiving plaintiff's medical records. HIPPA requires that medical records be handled in specific ways, so that an individual's medical privacy does not become compromised. I would imagine this is somewhat similar to library policies that dictate how patrons' records are to be handled to ensure their privacy is maintained. Although a person's medical history might seem, to some, more private than their reading history, the privacy of each should definately be protected.
I started working in an academic library as a work study assistant in May of 2001. On my very first day the library coordinator told me if the FBI comes in here and demands information on a patron or what materials they have checked out tell them we can not give out that information. I was told to never tell any other patrons the titles of what other specific patrons have read. I was also told if I had to call a patron to tell them the book they requested was in and they are not home do not disclose the title of the book on the answering machine or to the person who is taking the message. All of these, my boss told me, were invasions of privacy and/or confidentiality. Protecting patrons’ privacy and their right to anonymous access to information is extremely important. The Patriot Act, which allows the government to worm their way into U.S. citizens’ private lives though various loopholes, infringes on these Constitutional rights.
I think that the government does enact policies that protect more than harm. I will admit that there are policies that are driven for the good of the rich and powerful however I do not view the PAtriot Act as such. With anything there are negatives and positives but if the positves far out weigh the negatives and are more beneficial for a larger group of people then I support it. There are times when it is necceassary to subpeana records even library records in an effort to protect others. I would rather the government properly attain records to get a potential dangerous person or group of people off the streets rather than ignore them and keep thier info private.
Ideally, we would all like to think that the policies and laws that are governments enact are based on what they feel will protect us and our society the best, but in today's society with today's leaders I don't think that's the case.
In my opinion our society has been scared into relinquishing basic rights such as privacy, and that's really sad. The Patriot Act is painfully intrusive. But it was sold to us as a means to catch the bad guy in the trench coat lurking in the shadows that we can't see, but THEY can. This type of legislation is unethically justified by those who created it, and it's relevancy divides our country to the point were we can't agree on certain things, and that's terrible.
Furthermore, I fail to believe that obtaining library patron records will lead to a breakthrough in a case. When I was young I read the Anarchist Cookbook out of curiosity, so does that mean I was a terrorist or a curious patron? The same goes for any one who checks out a book with "questionable" subject matter. The title and content of books don't automatically label you as a person or define your beliefs. We'd like to think that because it would make profiling potential threats much easier, but the reality is is that it doesn't define anyone.
You know, I go back and forth when I think about the laws that are in place, especially those involved with the Patriot Act. Maybe I'm nieve, but part of me thinks that they do want to protect us from harm. But the other part of me thinks that they are taking advantage of the power that they have.
I have yet to encounter any legal actions at my school. I do know that at staff meetings some student names are brought up when we discuss special ed (I work at a small school, so most of us know who the children are that are mentioned.) Teachers too must be careful when refering to specific children, just like librarians must be careful when talking about patrons.
I really enjoyed the video. Larry Lessig takes a very interesting approach to the issue.
Great post, Syliva and great response, Jeremy. I too believe that the government has the best interests of big businesses in mind more than the average citizen. However, in line with the read/write culture explained in the video, I believe the culture and the people in a grassroots kind of way can make a substantial difference. Look at the environment, for instance. Until "going green" became the hip thing to do, governmental policies favored the automobile industry and the like over clean air and water. Now the government sponsors commercials and websites on how to live a greener lifestyle. I'm not sure if this movement has directly affected any actual policies, but the advertising suggests that the government wants you to believe that they are making a difference to the health of the earth.
In response to the second question, I find that copyright law often complicates my job. Our media specialist is the only person in our school who seems to understand what is legal and what is not. Educators seem the lease concerned of anyone I've met about citing sources and obeying copyright law, and I think that this is more a product of desperation than of ignorance or malice. Certain things may be copied or shown for educational use when this would otherwise violate copyright, but personally I don't feel that I know where that boundary is and I probably accidentally violate it. If a situation arises where we don't know what to do about a particular resource, we ask our media specialist. I feel that copyright laws often restrict underresourced schools (who would not be able to actually buy the resource anyway) from doing the best for their students. The same way that authors and creators are required to contribute to the LOC, I think that creators should be expected to contribute to public education as well.
I find the Patriot Act particularly disturbing. I think that it is highly deceptive of our government to launch media campaigns about how our troops are "fighting for our freedom" while our government is destroying it at home -- it is blatant hypocrisy. In my humble opinion, we need more people to fight for our freedom on the home front. The Patriot Act may be in part aimed at the good of the citizens, but personally I don't find the kind of safety promised by the Act all that comforting because it is elusive and comes at a high cost.
I agree with other who say that the government doesn't have the peoples best interests in mind when they make laws. No matter who is president, the government has always worked to protect itself.
Libraries, however, exist to inform patrons, and thus they do have the people in mind when making policies. Libraries try to serve and protect patrons. Libraries work for a free society in which everyone is given equal access to information. It's cliche, but true: knowledge is power, an libraries work to give power to the citizens.
Post a Comment