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.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
