I enjoyed reading the Bowers article, if only for the historical perspective it provided. By and large, however, the piece served as a chilling reminder of just how over broad the provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT are. As I write this, I’m sitting in a public library. Who knows – I may be sharing the creation of this blog post with security operatives who were tipped off by my use of “over broad” in the same sentence as the USA PATRIOT ACT. If I should suddenly stop posting to the blog, please contact my wife and tell her that “the crow flies east in the winter.” She’ll know what to do.
Seriously though, some of the cloak and dagger stuff in that article would be comical if it were fiction. What possible reason could an agency like the IRS have for wanting to know who checked out books on explosives? Wouldn’t the circulation history of a biography on Osama Bin Laden implicate dozens of high school students writing reports as potential national security risks? To my layman’s understanding, the USA PATRIOT ACT essentially means that “national security” can be used as the justification for all manner of fundamentally unconstitutional searches and seizures that won’t ever be explained or justified due to the “highly sensitive” nature of the investigations, which can’t be talked about or reported on due to the Section 215 gag order. Thanks, guys. I feel safer already.
With regard to the Britz piece, I share in the sentiments of others here who have observed his firm grasp of the obvious. Sadly, my eyes glossed over about halfway through the article, so I may have missed what I’m sure were some finely articulated points on social justice with regard to the marginalized, information-poor populations of the world. I’m fairly certain, too, that these marginalized, information-poor populations appreciate ivory tower intellectuals like Britz taking to the ramparts on their behalf. I probably shouldn’t be so dismissive and reductive, but this piece just rubbed me the wrong way.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Girl Talk Coming to Madison
photo © 2006 Tom Purves | more info (via: Wylio)Looks like everyone's favorite mash up artist is coming to Madison, March 7 at the Orpheum. His new album is also freely available on the internets. I think it came out quite recently, so his site is being hammered pretty hard.
Bowers and Library History
I really enjoyed reading the Bowers article – especially how he put privacy of information into a historical perspective. I never knew about Regan and the pressure he put on libraries to give up information in an attempt to prove themselves as “anti-communistic”. It is extremely frightening…but interesting all the same.
I disagree with the Patriot Act and what it potentially means for libraries. But the thing that really bugs me about it is that the Act promotes an “us vs. them” mindset/hysteria. In a world which libraries are fighting so hard to protect patron rights and information (for very good reasons) this law makes us out to be the bad guys. How can an establishment whose foundation is partially the result of Thomas Jefferson and later Andrew Carnegie – two American Icons –be considered anything BUT supportive of American rights and freedoms? Among these include the freedom to private information.
I disagree with the Patriot Act and what it potentially means for libraries. But the thing that really bugs me about it is that the Act promotes an “us vs. them” mindset/hysteria. In a world which libraries are fighting so hard to protect patron rights and information (for very good reasons) this law makes us out to be the bad guys. How can an establishment whose foundation is partially the result of Thomas Jefferson and later Andrew Carnegie – two American Icons –be considered anything BUT supportive of American rights and freedoms? Among these include the freedom to private information.
Privacy issues
While reading Britz’s article, I was reminded of a child complaining that their friend has more than they do. My personal opinion is that Britz sounded like an immature whiny brat. Yes, people without education are illiterate and don’t have the same opportunities as those who are, but libraries are free and even if every resource in the world isn’t available there, there are other resources available to them. They just choose not to take advantage of them. I’m talking about in America. I’m not sure how it is in other countries (as I’ve never traveled overseas).
The video reminded me of a situation that occurred at my last job. I had been approached by a police officer who showed me a picture and asked if I had ever seen that person inside the library. I said no (because I hadn’t) and then discussed it with my supervisor. She told me that I am not allowed to say whether or not I have seen someone in the library unless they issue a warrant for that information. From then on, all of those questions are to be referred to a supervisor and not handled at the desk. Kudos to the Connecticut librarians though! (I still don’t see how they were a threat to the Bush Administration though)
Bowers article was very interesting as I didn’t realize what laws were in place for the FBI and other such agencies. As far as I know, our computer system doesn’t keep records of what people have checked out. Unless that is something that the high tech computer people can get to! I’m kinda on the wall with this one as I don’t want my privacy taken away from, but then if someone is planning a terrorist attack, then I’d want them caught before they go through with it!
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Module 11 - Privacy Matters
I really liked this statement from the Bowers article, “One cannot exercise the right to read if the possible consequences include damage to one’s reputation, ostracism from the community or workplace, or criminal penalties” (377). It really summarizes the thoughts and ideas for the week’s readings and video. If someone is afraid of being criticized, ostracized or otherwise ridiculed, judged or considered a criminal, it really restricts their privacy and their freedom to do, read, or view as they please. Interestingly, as stated in the Bowers article, the word “privacy” itself is never mentioned in the Constitution (377). Certainly though, it must be one of the “inalienable rights” granted to each US citizen?
Another line from the Bowers article that struck me (but for different reasons) was the one about “zones of privacy” that “create areas or matters that should be beyond the reach of government and left to the autonomy of the individual.” (Bowers 378) This made me think of the very recent news story I heard about San Francisco, Happy Meals and government control. An ordinance was passed there requiring that a “healthier” option to be chosen in place of fries for the toy to be included in the Happy Meal. Apparently the city board passed the ordinance because it feels that this is a way to control childhood obesity. I see it as us falling one step closer to a communistic society. When does the government learn to back off and let individuals make their own choices concerning their children and their food consumption? But I digress; this is supposed to be a discussion about privacy, which, I suppose, leads me to the Patriot Act.
The YouTube video featuring the story about the librarians in Connecticut that fought the Patriot Act while under gag order was actually really interesting and enlightening. It was helpful to see and listen to an actual instance of the Patriot Act in action and the relative helplessness and feeling of isolation that the librarian (and then his trusted fellow board members) must have initially been feeling. This area of confidentiality and privacy requests, is, in theory, rather black and white, but is, in execution, rather grey and fuzzy. It’s hard to imagine being that librarian served with the request for private information and then trying to make sense of it. Wouldn’t it be scary to be that librarian served with such a request and not be able to talk to anyone about it (not even being certain whether you can seek legal counsel) and then be threatened with jail time if you didn’t comply with the request?? Yikes! Certainly you don’t want to be thought of as a threat to national security (as the speaker stated the librarians were in the video), but also you would want to divulge information about someone that might be an actual threat. But, of course, we as librarians know and understand that upholding the privacy of our patrons comes first.
Another line from the Bowers article that struck me (but for different reasons) was the one about “zones of privacy” that “create areas or matters that should be beyond the reach of government and left to the autonomy of the individual.” (Bowers 378) This made me think of the very recent news story I heard about San Francisco, Happy Meals and government control. An ordinance was passed there requiring that a “healthier” option to be chosen in place of fries for the toy to be included in the Happy Meal. Apparently the city board passed the ordinance because it feels that this is a way to control childhood obesity. I see it as us falling one step closer to a communistic society. When does the government learn to back off and let individuals make their own choices concerning their children and their food consumption? But I digress; this is supposed to be a discussion about privacy, which, I suppose, leads me to the Patriot Act.
The YouTube video featuring the story about the librarians in Connecticut that fought the Patriot Act while under gag order was actually really interesting and enlightening. It was helpful to see and listen to an actual instance of the Patriot Act in action and the relative helplessness and feeling of isolation that the librarian (and then his trusted fellow board members) must have initially been feeling. This area of confidentiality and privacy requests, is, in theory, rather black and white, but is, in execution, rather grey and fuzzy. It’s hard to imagine being that librarian served with the request for private information and then trying to make sense of it. Wouldn’t it be scary to be that librarian served with such a request and not be able to talk to anyone about it (not even being certain whether you can seek legal counsel) and then be threatened with jail time if you didn’t comply with the request?? Yikes! Certainly you don’t want to be thought of as a threat to national security (as the speaker stated the librarians were in the video), but also you would want to divulge information about someone that might be an actual threat. But, of course, we as librarians know and understand that upholding the privacy of our patrons comes first.
Private(s)
If I was a superhero, my superhuman powers would be taking standardized tests and valuing my privacy. Privacy is power. It’s a power so great that being engulfed with controversy is practically a prerequisite. I think of privacy as the power to control information about oneself. This, of course, is a little too idealistic…
The notion of privacy is extremely fluid – the varying levels of significance we ascribe to it, as well as how we apply it to specific actions and settings brings to mind the cross-discipline conflict of theory v. practice. There is, for good reason, much discussion on invasion of privacy, and being subject to unwanted scrutiny. But the opposite abounds as well – a general lack of concern for ones privacy seems to have skyrocketed along with the advancement and popularity of networking technologies. I started thinking about this when a classmate brought up the idea of Orwell’s 1984. I’m sure I started looking too deep into it, but I think a comparison of 1984 with Huxley’s Brave New World could shed light on how I feel about privacy, the values we place on it, and the overall threat that its up against.
In 1984, the horrifying condition that has come about is due to an externally imposed oppression. The fear lies with this external force (government) that imposes itself upon the people, banning books, invading privacy, etc. I agree that this is horrifying, and that in the theory of privacy this is the worst thing that can happen. But I tend to side with Huxley’s reasoning, which is itself a bit more horrifying in my opinion. Brave New World depicts a society that deprives itself of personal autonomy (the idea of an oppressor, a ‘big brother’ is superfluous). This society doesn’t value privacy, and in the end loves the technologies that undo their capacities to think. Thus, there is no need to ban a book – for there is no audience for one. There is no need for an invasion of privacy because we don’t value it. Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us…Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.
I by no means want to minimize what so many librarians stand for (to which I also stand for, and look forward to as a librarian), but for me the real threat to privacy doesn’t come from external forces like the FBI or the PATRIOT Act – it comes from the masses not realizing the power they wield. The library’s stance on privacy will be extremely hard to realize as the definition of privacy itself is transformed (again).
Module 11
Like some others this week, what stood out to me most was the fact that privacy is, in fact, not a right granted in the U.S. constitution but is rather only interpreted as such through case law on certain amendments. That really took me by surprise because in all the discussions on privacy that I've had in school, I guess it has never been explicitly said, "Privacy is not a constitutional right." With that being said, suddenly I feel a much heavier weight of obligation in my future role as a champion of democracy and advocate for patron privacy rights in accessing information.
It just blows my mind that the act of learning and acquiring education is something that is subject to surveillance, and for what? A shadow of a doubt that it is in true scholarly pursuit? I loved Bowers' quote, "If individuals do not feel that they can read information regarding controversial or non-controversial topics, their ability to learn and expand their knowledge is infringed and impeded." So true! And it is exactly to which John Stuart Mill would respond, "I told you so!" Just as he advocated for the free circulation of ideas, points, and counterpoints, so should a free and democratic society fight for their right to learn and access information without fear of judgment or punishment.
Going back to last week with Jacobs and Yeo (2005), they too argued that democracy requires an informed citizenry where citizens must have full, FREE, easy access to information, whether it be about government, Islamic faith practices, and firearms, as well as fashion trends, home design tips, and alternative health remedies. On an individual level, we should be ensuring that our library policies reflect our own passion for protecting patron privacy and - more importantly - that our staffs are informed about what the policy means in an age where government acts override these overarching ethical ideals in librarianship. Given the context of a world motivated by fear, we and our staffs need to be well-versed in the reasons behind our iron-clad grip on patrons' right to privacy and informed about what outside forces we find ourselves up against, whether it be a National Security Letter, a subpoena, or an FBI agent waving a badge and unauthorized requests for information about patrons and circulation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)