Free to Decide

Original Article: Link

I find this article particularly odd for a few reasons, the first being that the Library Director’s actions were fully compliant with patrons’ rights and the law. The second issue I have is that the nature of the complaint from the police department is regarding the Director’s being “more interested in protecting her library than helping the police.” I don’t really understand why what the Director is “more interested in” matters at all, or for that matter how it is the basis of potential reprimand from the city or library board. If she followed the letter of the law, as she had and the police department had not, and supplied all of the information requested according to legal procedure, what issue should the police or the city have with her at all. As the Director points out, I think it more than likely is an issue of the police department and city officials being properly educated on library patron privacy rights and laws. The only understandable concern I can see is that the Director consulted the State Library Association’s legal representative and not the borough’s attorney. In my judgment she should have contacted both, following city procedure as well as protecting the library rights of her city and state with the aid of the State Library Association.

Original Article: Link

It seems I’m seeing articles like this more and more often nowadays. I’m not entirely sure if this has something to do with the rising popularity of entry-level laptops with decent range wireless built-in, progressively restrictive library policies, or incompetent library tech staff. Perhaps its a little of each.

Offering wireless access has, I think, been a very smart way of offsetting filtering and maintenance concerns regarding computer and internet use to the users themselves. After all, if they’re on their own machines and we grant them access to the information via their own medium, how could we possibly limit or filter their access? It has, however, brought on new costs and policies for libraries, two of which seem to be at issue here. The first, cost of broadband, is more an issue for smaller libraries that need to regulate the amount of data going in and out of the network. File-sharing or downloading very large files under these restrictions sometimes bring internet access down until the culprit can be identified, endangering freedom of access for patrons. The second issue, policy, often identifies appropriate use as happening between the opening and closing hours of the library. This, of course, protects the library from liability of actions perpetrated on the network while no-one is present.

Despite these very real concerns, however, I can’t help but think why don’t they just turn the wireless antenna off upon closing? Perhaps this rather simple solution has eluded some libraries, but for the very same reasons we don’t leave the doors to the library unlocked when everyone goes home at night we shouldn’t leave our wireless antennas on.

Well, it appears Senator Ted Stevens is at again, introducing what may be prematurely termed “Son of DOPA” on another bill introduced to congress, this time under the heading “S.49“. Though the outcome in the Democrat controlled Congress will likely stall it at the House this time around, the impending presidential elections with Kerry and McCain weighing in for appropriate sound bites (if bill supporters play their cards right) may have some impact on how it is received.

Currently in committee with the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (shouldn’t those be split up just a bit nowadays?) I took some time to go over the full text of the bill, and the following are some of my thoughts on the “Definitions” section within Title II of the Bill:

1. The bill targets social networking and chat sites operated exclusively by commercial entities. I don’t entirely understand how defining the target as “commercial” restricts operators or webmasters from hosting the service through a third-party affiliate.

2. The bill targets journal-keeping functionalities. This has inevitable spillover into blogs, and as many of us have borne witness to, much of the internet as a whole, especially business, are absorbing some level of blog-like functionality. Restricting only the most obvious and popular blogs portals will only lead to use of blogging tools hosted off-site (such as a privately hosted blog like this one).

3. The bill targets sites that enable communication between users. Now this one, more than any other, seems a little rediculous. Are they hoping to one day block commerce sites like Amazon, Ebay, or Yahoo! Shopping which along with offering “materials unsuitable for children” allow the exchange of comments and messages between users? Additionally, web developers and designers the whole world over are progressively moving web communities towards more and more interactive tools and experiences in a very big way (they call it web 2.0).

I’m sure there’s much more to say about what’s written in there, but we’ll likely revisit the topic in class along the way. Additionally, as I find more on the topic I’ll post it here with an appropriate title. Let me know what you think of these rather general and restrictive interpretations.

My name is Patrick McVicker and I am a graduate student in Library and Information Sciences through the distance program at the University of Washington.

For the next few months I will be using this space to post my thoughts on various issues, contemporary and past, within the area of Intellectual Freedom and Library Sciences. Additionally, I’ll occasionally post links to current issues or stories of note without comment, just as a matter of curiosity.

I encourage all who read to leave feedback or comments on issues of interest and would like to say thank you again to all the members of the class who and the instructors who made for a very enlightening and entertaining residency.