Washington State Supreme Court Rules Against Freedom of Information

Link to Article

Washington State Supreme Court ruled against allowing adult patrons’ access to certain constitutionally protected information last month, according to this ACLU article dated May 2010. I was horrified when I read the court ruled against a library patron’s right to access information just last month. Why would a library or State Supreme Court want to deny citizens their right to access information?

The ACLU represented three library users and a nonprofit organization against the five-county North Central Regional Library in eastern Washington. Their lawsuit challenged the NCRL’s policy of refusing to disable web filters for sessions of reading and research. This ruling will be appealed in a federal court.

This isn’t an issue about pornography use in the library or protecting children; this is about control. Who has control over the information adult library patrons can access? The answer is simple – the patron. This is the 21st century. If filtering software is difficult to disable or doesn’t allow for adult patron access to information upon request, then it can’t be used in public libraries.

A Potential OA Policy for US Agencies

Link to Article

If passed, the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) and similar enactments by governments around the world will significantly change the way we share scholarly research. This act would require research organizations receiving public funding to publish results of their research for Open Access. Researchers will have six months from the time they publish in scholarly journals to post the information in an OA depository. National Institutes of Health (NIH) voluntarily implemented a policy requiring final peer-reviewed journal manuscripts from research it funded be published in PubMed Central.

According to the author, “The peer-review process helps to assure the integrity of the research process. But criticism has ensued over the process of publishing these research papers in journals that are often high-priced with limited availability.” (Pike) FRPAA is criticized by publishing groups who have a financial interest in maintaining control of this information. Supporters of this act include scholarly societies and librarians’ associations. Advocates for transparency and access to government records may also support this legislation.

As a school media specialist, I am very excited to facilitate my students' explorations of the research available on Pubmed and, hopefully, other open access depositories in the future. As a citizen and taxpayer, I appreciate having perpetual access to this information.

Online Social Networking Sites and Privacy: Revisiting Ethical Considerations for a New Generation of Technology - Blog #3

Link to Article

This article challenges the librarian to consider the ethical use of social networking sites by libraries and the responsibility librarians have to protect patrons’ privacy.

Facebook and Myspace have the ability to share users’ information any way they want. They can change privacy settings without the users’ knowledge. Facebook and Myspace “own” users information. Social networking sites are under pressure to make money. Sharing personal information about users is fundamental to making a profit.

This article and the lecture for this week prompted me to adjust my Facebook privacy settings. I now have all my privacy settings set to “friends only” except for videos and photos I’m tagged in. Only I can view photos I’m tagged in. According to this article, "25% of Facebooks’ users can’t even find the privacy settings, leaving them at the mercy of the sites’ default settings." I hesitate to post much of anything. Why would I want to give my private information away for free?

Helping patrons and students understand the nature and mission of social networking and how to limit exposing too much personal information is an important part of the library’s mission. According to the article, “By creating a profile on these sites, libraries also risk further legitimizing them, and encouraging users to be passive regarding their own privacy. If libraries take a comprehensive view of privacy as a core value, encouraging user to use products that do not have the same regard for privacy should give librarians pause.”

Discussions about internet privacy happen routinely at my house. I live with two teenagers. They understand nothing they post or text will ever be private. Still one of my children lacks the discretion to understand what is really negative and could potentially hurt him in the future. His idea of negative and my idea of negative aren’t the same.

Google, Facebook Asked to Cooperate With Any Government Investigations

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/29/google-facebook-asked-to-_n_594280.html

That headline got my attention. Oh, was Google going to release information about my searches? Was Facebook going to share information about my “friends?” After reading the story I realized the word “Any” was overstated.

This article is about Google cooperating with the Federal Trade Commission’s investigation of Google’s “accidental” snatching up of fragments of emails, web-surfing behavior and other online activities over public Wi-Fi networks in more than 30 countries while it was photographing neighborhoods for it “Street View” mapping feature. Facebook is under investigation for sharing user information as part of its new “instant personalization” program. Instant personalization draws information from a member’s profile to customize other sites such as the music service, Pandora. The House Judiciary Committee is asking Google and Facebook to cooperate with any government inquiries into privacy at both companies. Both companies have agreed to cooperate with these investigations.

This article is the “tip of the iceberg” for privacy investigations. Privacy will be a much bigger issue in the years to come. The Internet and the digitization of information have made it nearly impossible to keep any information private and “pirate” proof. I’m concerned about medical and students records. I’m also concerned about financial records and intellectual property. Governments like China, who electronically snoop on their own citizens, have no ethical or constitutional motivation to protect anyone’s right to privacy.

Texas board approves social studies standards that perceived liberal bias

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052104365.html

At first of I was horrified then I was disgusted. Those are not politically correct statements and shouldn’t have a place in an impartial discussion, but you asked for my reaction. The order of magnitude doesn’t match that of the Gulf Oil Spill, but when school boards rewrite American history it is a disaster.

I have long been concerned about “lay people” governing schools. Boards of directors of corporations, hospitals, and universities are stakeholders in the success of their institutions. It seems that school board members are using a platform of education reform to further conservative political views. They have very little invested in the success of their organization.

Recently I’ve heard inaccurate and biased statements made by state school superintendents and school board members. In a recent statement by Tony Bennett, Indiana’s State Superintendent in testimony to U.S. Congress, Mr. Bennett asserted teachers unions were the reason school reform was not working. A republican Texas State School Board Member stated school teachers took prayer out of school in a recent CNN interview. These comments are, at best, politically motivated misinterpretations of the facts or, at worst, intentional misleading in their motivation.

The position of state superintendent is politically appointed. State superintendents represent the views of the governor. They don’t represent the views of students, parents, teachers, or academics. School board members often represent their own religious, political, or economic interests. They campaign on an “improve schools” platform, but often serve their personal agendas.

The ALA Code of Ethics states, “The librarian, representing the governing body, should see that the library serves impartially all individuals, groups, and elements that make up its constituency. In the case of the public library as a non-partisan institution the books purchased should represent all phases of opinion and interest rather than the personal tastes of the librarian or board members…” State school boards are notorious for promoting information that supports their personal opinions on political, religious, and economic issues. Schools are libraries - they collect books and information for public use. It is fundamental to the principle of intellectual freedom to resist school board censorship of textbooks.