When I first saw the title to this article I thought cool, but knew right away it was going to head down a slippery slope to creepy town. Apparently some school libraries in the United Kingdom are beginning to use fingerprint scans instead of the traditional library card. This of course causes all kinds of concerns about privacy and safety. There seems to be only mild interest for similar setups here in the U.S., but I'm sure its only time. The article did mention that some schools use fingerprint scanners for their lunch programs. To be honest I'm not sure why there is a need to use a fingerprint to check out library books. I know kids might lose a library card but are fingerprint scanners really necessary?
So the biggest concern is what happens if this information gets into the wrong hands. Schools would need to address how the data is saved, where, and for how long. As the article points out credit card numbers can be replaced, but someones fingerprint cannot. So if this information is compromised in some way it could have repercussions for years to come. A kind of scary example is the company that use to run the Clear program in airports. This program allowed members to bypass much of the security at airports. The data collected for members included fingerprint and iris scans. Well this company went bankrupt and sold all the data to another company that hopes to revive the program. It is scary to think that your fingerprints can be bought and sold. Of course members submitted this information voluntarily, but I'm sure known of them thought it would be juggled around in this way. The good news is the new company has given clients the option of deleting their information, but as we all know it is hard to know if this data will ever be fully deleted from all storage devices or if it has been compromised already.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Google and Censorship
Well Google seems to constantly have issues that fall into the realm of intellectual freedom so this week I'll take a look at some of the latest news surrounding Google. I came across this story about Google's new SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) search that will mean some school's may have to block Google. Basically the new search encrypts all the information including search terms which means filters can not do their job.
Because my husband is a systems engineer for the local school system I decided to conduct a casual interview and learn what his experience and thoughts on this issue are. First off their internet provider is already able to work around Google's SSL search without blocking it. He said there is also the option to use a non-SSL version of Google which I had not gathered from the article. He did explain that this is a larger issue than just blocking Google's search site because it also includes Gmail. His understanding was that Google's implementation of an SSL search was their way of getting back at China's censorship efforts. Unfortunately, it seems to cause problems for institutions here in the U.S. who legally have to filter.
I can applaud Google's effort to prevent censorship, but it seems to backfire when users have to block the site altogether due to legislation such as CIPA. It also begs the question if it is really accomplishing their goal. Of course encrypted searching creates more privacy and can be a good thing but a company as large as Google and one that is constantly in the battle against censorship needs to work closer with schools and libraries or at least consider them to come up solutions that guarantee quality searching for all.
Because my husband is a systems engineer for the local school system I decided to conduct a casual interview and learn what his experience and thoughts on this issue are. First off their internet provider is already able to work around Google's SSL search without blocking it. He said there is also the option to use a non-SSL version of Google which I had not gathered from the article. He did explain that this is a larger issue than just blocking Google's search site because it also includes Gmail. His understanding was that Google's implementation of an SSL search was their way of getting back at China's censorship efforts. Unfortunately, it seems to cause problems for institutions here in the U.S. who legally have to filter.
I can applaud Google's effort to prevent censorship, but it seems to backfire when users have to block the site altogether due to legislation such as CIPA. It also begs the question if it is really accomplishing their goal. Of course encrypted searching creates more privacy and can be a good thing but a company as large as Google and one that is constantly in the battle against censorship needs to work closer with schools and libraries or at least consider them to come up solutions that guarantee quality searching for all.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Internet access for disabled users
This week’s blog is on another topic that hits me close at home. I have a cousin who is deaf and another cousin who has mental and physical handicaps due to being born with spina bifida. So when I came across this interview about the organization Knowbility’s effort to make the internet more accessible to disabled users my interest was piqued. (I recommend listening to the recording of the interview if possible so that you can hear the sampling of the text reader used.)
The interview points out that many people recognize accessibility issues based on class issues, but not everyone thinks about how disabled people access the internet. One of the people interviewed is blind and uses a text reader to surf the web. Unfortunately not every website works with the text reader. She estimates that she can use about 75% of public websites. For deaf users the organization recommends providing closed captioning. There is also the need to include keyboard controls for users who can not use a mouse. Even tougher is the issue of helping those with cognitive handicaps navigate websites.
What I took from this interview was how important it is for website developers to include accessibility for all users in the website code. I think this is especially important for libraries to consider as they develop websites and other online resources. They should also provide links to sites that are disability friendly. I thought the question asked by the interviewer about government requirements for disability accessibility was thought provoking. While it is natural now to consider how physical locations are accessible to the disabled it should also be a consideration for the internet. Of course the size and fluidity of the internet makes this difficult to achieve and govern.
The interview points out that many people recognize accessibility issues based on class issues, but not everyone thinks about how disabled people access the internet. One of the people interviewed is blind and uses a text reader to surf the web. Unfortunately not every website works with the text reader. She estimates that she can use about 75% of public websites. For deaf users the organization recommends providing closed captioning. There is also the need to include keyboard controls for users who can not use a mouse. Even tougher is the issue of helping those with cognitive handicaps navigate websites.
What I took from this interview was how important it is for website developers to include accessibility for all users in the website code. I think this is especially important for libraries to consider as they develop websites and other online resources. They should also provide links to sites that are disability friendly. I thought the question asked by the interviewer about government requirements for disability accessibility was thought provoking. While it is natural now to consider how physical locations are accessible to the disabled it should also be a consideration for the internet. Of course the size and fluidity of the internet makes this difficult to achieve and govern.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Digital Access to National Records
I’m going to write this week’s blog on one of the my favorite subjects; digitization of archival records. Recently the National Archives and Records Administration posted on their blog NARAtions about questions and concerns researchers have about their partnership with commercial entities to digitize records. (The May 13, 2010 blog entry.) The concerns range from quality of the images and indexing to why the NARA has partnered with commercial databases.
When these partnerships were first announced I remember genealogical message boards and blogs being filled with comments on how citizens’ rights to access government documents was being limited by having outside groups that charge for access digitizing national records. The best answer to these concerns is that access to national records is still unlimited, but users of Ancestry.com, Footnote.com, and other database services are paying for the convenience of accessing these records at home. This is nothing new. To order a Civil War pension record from the National Archives costs $75. But if you visit the archives in person you just have to pay the copying fees. Obviously it’s cheaper to go in person, but for many the $75 is more convenient. While researchers have a right to access these records there is nothing that states the government has to give them free access online. Unfortunately many researchers have come to expect just that. While the internet is a great tool to genealogy researchers it is just, “The tip of the iceberg.”
I have to agree that there is reasonable concern about the quality of the digitization and indexing. Particularly on Ancestry.com which has a history of using non-English speakers to index records. For this reason abbreviations for Indiana have been indexed as India. Sad but true. The NARA answers these concerns by stating their goals and methodology for providing users with the best quality images and indexes.
Ultimately these partnerships are for the better. Companies like Ancestry and groups like Family Search have the resources to digitize that the NARA does not. Both groups now use volunteers to index so not only can Americans have greater access to historic records but they can help expand this access. Many libraries have memberships to Ancestry.com so if you want convenience without the high cost visit your library!
When these partnerships were first announced I remember genealogical message boards and blogs being filled with comments on how citizens’ rights to access government documents was being limited by having outside groups that charge for access digitizing national records. The best answer to these concerns is that access to national records is still unlimited, but users of Ancestry.com, Footnote.com, and other database services are paying for the convenience of accessing these records at home. This is nothing new. To order a Civil War pension record from the National Archives costs $75. But if you visit the archives in person you just have to pay the copying fees. Obviously it’s cheaper to go in person, but for many the $75 is more convenient. While researchers have a right to access these records there is nothing that states the government has to give them free access online. Unfortunately many researchers have come to expect just that. While the internet is a great tool to genealogy researchers it is just, “The tip of the iceberg.”
I have to agree that there is reasonable concern about the quality of the digitization and indexing. Particularly on Ancestry.com which has a history of using non-English speakers to index records. For this reason abbreviations for Indiana have been indexed as India. Sad but true. The NARA answers these concerns by stating their goals and methodology for providing users with the best quality images and indexes.
Ultimately these partnerships are for the better. Companies like Ancestry and groups like Family Search have the resources to digitize that the NARA does not. Both groups now use volunteers to index so not only can Americans have greater access to historic records but they can help expand this access. Many libraries have memberships to Ancestry.com so if you want convenience without the high cost visit your library!
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Salinas, CA librarian's reaction to child viewing pornography.
Recently, a librarian in California was accused of slapping a ten-year-old she caught looking at pornography (Click here to read the news article). While this incident quickly reignites the debate over filtering on library computers what I want to focus on is the actions of the librarians mentioned in the article. First, I cannot blame the librarian for being "shocked" when coming across a child viewing pornography. I would like to give her the benefit of the doubt that she only put her hand on his back. But this incident clearly shows that librarians need to be very careful how they react in such situations particularly with children. Unfortunately, after searching the Salinas library's web page I could not find their internet use policy. I was curious if there were any limits on children's internet usage that would have prevented this incident.
What really stood out to me was the fact that librarians regularly look over the shoulders of patrons using the internet. Clearly patrons do not have full privacy. But most of all this situation puts librarians into the role of policing what patrons are viewing. Which can be uncomfortable for all involved. I feel librarians need to protect the rights of patrons to view materials of their choosing, but also protect patrons from having to view materials they do not want to see. With most internet terminals being in public areas this can be difficult. The best solution is to have a well stated internet use policy and educate all internet users. Librarians should know how to react to these situations before they happen to avoid what happened in this case.
What really stood out to me was the fact that librarians regularly look over the shoulders of patrons using the internet. Clearly patrons do not have full privacy. But most of all this situation puts librarians into the role of policing what patrons are viewing. Which can be uncomfortable for all involved. I feel librarians need to protect the rights of patrons to view materials of their choosing, but also protect patrons from having to view materials they do not want to see. With most internet terminals being in public areas this can be difficult. The best solution is to have a well stated internet use policy and educate all internet users. Librarians should know how to react to these situations before they happen to avoid what happened in this case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)