Well, I didn't think I'd post before heading to California, but I can't keep my mouth shut on this one. The director of my former place of work is considering (no one has said yet "Yes, we are doing this for sure") installing software on their internet computers whereby a staff member can pull up a screenshot from any computer in the lab on their own computer. You will find the article here: http://tinyurl.com/3fxmy3
Ok, let's examine this for a moment. It seems like a good idea on the surface. After all, this is a very non-confrontational way of checking to see if someone is viewing pornography or other objectional material. This means staff doesn't have to go running over when they're suspicious, only to have the patron shut down what they're viewing and pretend to be surfing safe sites. But let's be honest--if they've taken down the site because you're looking over their shoulder, isn't that what you were going to ask them to do in the first place? Usually, they won't pull it up again because they know you're watching them. And you can always check the history after they've gone and take disciplinary action the next time they sign in.
One comment in this article is priceless: "I would ask him how bad his problem is." Well, I worked at the little branch, not the main library, and the problem there could be pretty bad some days. And that was in a tiny 10X10 computer room stuffed with 8 computers, one printer, and completely unembarrassed patrons who acted SHOCKED when you told them they couldn't print out pictures of naked people. For the third time in a month. Seriously.
Another quote from the article: "Make the rules for the good people." Those people who need to do online banking, search health information, or do other private transactions count in this category. Mr. Director says "If you need privacy, you should get your own computer." This shows how little Mr. Director knows his patrons. Most of these people can't afford their own computer, let alone an internet fee every month. Why do you think they're coming into the library? Sure, they don't expect to be totally safe where anyone can walk behind you and see what you're doing. But someone would have to be looking over your shoulder for some time to write down all of your account information, and you would definitely notice them. Now that you can access your medical records (at least for the Cleveland Clinic) from the internet, it opens up a whole new can of medical privacy worms. What if the employee pulls up the wrong screen? Or, in the case of bank records, what if the employee purposely pulls up the wrong screen? Scary but true, not everyone who works in the library can be trusted, like in any workplace.
So, there's the big giant privacy issue. But there's another one that affects the employees. It will now be their fault if someone comes in and is not caught looking at pornography. Seriously. After this big jolt of publicity, the public will expect to have "safe" computers at the library. When the inevitable happens and someone witnesses something on a computer screen, the first question will be: "You have the technology--why weren't you CHECKING?" I wouldn't want that responsibility. Because you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
So, that's my two cents. I think it's a bad idea all around. And it pains me, because I loved my job at this library and really cared about the patrons I was serving. So, I hate to see them all suffering because of a few bad apples and a director who is more like an overprotective parent than a library professional (think John Lithgow in Footloose).
Anyone else want to chime in on this? I'd hate to be the only one on my soap box here.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Alright, I'll join you on the soapbox.
You have written an interesting blog. I believe it exposes American Library Association propaganda as just that, propaganda. The top leaders at the ALA's "Office for Intellectual Freedom" consistently make the argument that a few bad apples shouldn't spoil the stew. Hence the article reports:
"American Library Association Deputy Director Deborah Caldwell-Stone said she is unaware of any public library using the virtual software to monitor patrons.
"My response would be, 'How bad is your problem?' " she said.
"Based on feedback from libraries, only a very small percentage of patrons misuse computers, she said. Monitoring, either by technology or a "tap on the shoulder," is more likely to make a patron researching breast cancer, for instance, feel uncomfortable."
To this you say:
"One comment in this article is priceless: "I would ask him how bad his problem is." Well, I worked at the little branch, not the main library, and the problem there could be pretty bad some days. And that was in a tiny 10X10 computer room stuffed with 8 computers, one printer, and completely unembarrassed patrons who acted SHOCKED when you told them they couldn't print out pictures of naked people. For the third time in a month. Seriously."
That, to me, exposes that piece of ALA propaganda as propaganda. Here comes the ALA hinting that it hardly happens and what's the big deal if it does, and you, you who worked there, you who gets up on a soapbox and breaks the media silence, you expose that the problem is very serious and needs some kind of solution.
Anyway, I also wrote on this issue, and perhaps you'll comment on my blog at Go To Hell, ALA, Says Trend Setting Library Director; Wants to Implement Monitoring Software to Watch Computer Screens From Afar. You'll see I expose more of the ALA's propaganda, like the "feel uncomfortable" legally irrelevant claim.
Even if there is a problem with people viewing objectionable material on library computers, there are still concerns about privacy, free speech, and access to information that subsume even community standards. I think Elaine's post does a good job of outlining how policies like this one are generally ineffective, pose disadvantages for people who use library computers for perfectly acceptable reasons (online banking, bona fide research, etc), as well as the ways in which these policies place an unfair onus on library staff to "police" computer usage.
And calling it "propaganda" doesn't make it any less true.
The "propaganda" comment went to another issue, about the ALA misleading people, not about the actual facts of this case.
Also, it seems from the story that the librarians don't view the innovative solution as an "unfair onus on library staff to 'police' computer usage." It seems you have projected that on them.
Be that as it may, I definitely agree that threading the needle on doing this right will be very important, largely for the reasons you stated. I'll bet no one solution is perfect, but I'll bet people can intelligently balance things out and do what is most right for them.
For me, that would be to protect children from harm such as rape or molestation, which happens in unfiltered library after unfiltered library, rather than protecting people from a librarian ensuring they are following library policy.
I am posting my comment left on the post at safelibraries.org:
After reading the comment you posted on my blog, and your post here, I wanted to respond to some of the points you made.
I think that ALA has actually done a great job of giving public libraries guidelines for what the ideal library should do for its patrons. However, their guidelines don't work in every community, and the library must serve the population that votes for its taxes and uses its services.
That being said, I don't think monitoring patrons' internet usage through software that allows screenshots is a good thing. Will it stop people from looking at objectionable websites? No. Will it give patrons a false sense of security that it will prevent people from viewing pornography? Possibly. My concern is that the technology will be abused by an employee or that the staff will now be held responsible if a patron is indeed viewing something pornographic and it is not caught.
I hate it that people use our public computers to watch porn videos, and I hate it even more when I have to actually go and look at the computer screen to make sure that's what it is and tell them to stop. But I don't think filtering computers and technology used to "spy" on our patrons are the answers, either.
Valid points. And thank you for writing on my blog. I added a link pointing back here.
But I would not be so quick to shoot down a possibly useful solution, especially as experience tweaks it into better shape. At stake are the children who might continue to be raped or molested in public libraries.
If your innovative library director has a possibly good idea, I say he must have the chance to prove himself. A similar principle is built into the Bill of Rights. States are allowed to experiment with things as they wish without federal intervention. It's the Tenth Amendment.
Similarly, your library director must be allowed to give it a shot before the ALA and its acolytes swoop it to shut it down before it spreads.
A few last comments before I head to Anaheim for the week:
The article states nothing about how the librarians feel about this software because no one asked them. I was just stating how I would feel if I were placed in that situation.
And I fail to see the relationship to unfiltered internet and molestation in libraries. One has nothing to do with the other. Unfiltered internet is a computer issue. Molestation and other physical issues in a library are a security issue.
It seems like you are assuming that the people who come in to look at pornography are the same people who would molest a small child. I would need to see some hard data to believe that to be true.
Great. So it seems you are open minded, at least. But I won't use your blog to prove unfiltered computers result in rape and molestation of children. It is in the news over and over again. One recent story even made the direct connection outright. Keep track of my tracking of library crimes and you will eventually understand where I am coming from.
I'm not saying these things do not happen in libraries. However, child molesters come to the library because there are children there, not because they can look at child pornography on the internet (though they may do that, too). A bigger problem is parents who leave their children unattended in the library thinking it is a safe place. I'm sorry, but no public place is safe. I have a three-year-old, and I would never leave him unattended in any public space.
As for trying new things, I'm all for it. But I personally wouldn't use those computers if I knew staff could pull up whatever I was doing. Even if it was as simple as ordering a book from Amazon. I don't like the idea that they could pull up something with my account information. And, I also wouldn't want to be working in that lab the day (and it WILL happen, because this won't stop people from doing it) that porn pops up in front of some 9-year-old who came in to play a Spongebob game.
I don't know, it might be a good idea with some patrons. We've had a few who have notes on their cards about the police being called because they were viewing child porn. But of course they were either gone or closed down the site before the police arrived. If we could keep track of these repeat possible pedophile offenders I know I'd feel better.
JamiSings, why are you not keeping track? Is it because the ALA has guided American libraries to stop keeping track so as to make compliance with the USA PATRIOT Act impossible?
Okay, I do not want to get into an argument on this blog post about the USA Patriot Act. And libraries have a variety of reasons for not keeping track of what everyone has been doing on every computer.
Here is my question: How does seeing a screenshot of what someone is working on help you keep track better than putting a note on someone's car when they've been caught? It sounds like you are already keeping track.
Another question: If you had this software, would you constantly be checking the computers of those people you knew had a history of looking at child pornography (or other objectionable websites)? Even if it meant you were looking at their bank statements, their health information, etc.? Even if 9 times out of 10 they were doing something perfectly legitimate?
And how do you decide what constitues a "repeat offender?" Someone who has viewed offensive material twice? Three times? How do these people still have computer priveleges if they repeatedly violate your policies? I think disciplinary action that keeps people from using the computers works better than any screenshot technology.
I guess my problems with this technology stem from a) where do you draw the line as to what is offensive and b) what are the policies in place to protect those who are NOT doing anything wrong and also the employees who have to put this technology to use.
Post a Comment