Internet Privacy
Posted by Chris on June 22nd, 2008 filed in libraries, privacy, technologyA library system in Ohio is taking aggressive action to combat digital porn in its libraries, possibly installing software which would allow library staff to view a screenshot of what a patron is looking at on their computer, presumably to determine whether it’s objectionable or not.
Elaine doesn’t like it, and neither do I. And while I agree wholeheartedly with her, my objections also stem from questions about what (and why something) should be considered “objectionable,” since some would consider images from a lingerie catalog perfectly acceptable (they might be mildly provocative but are hardly pornographic), while others might object to the use of the word “fart” in a children’s book. (See DW’s Guide to Perfect Manners and Walter the Farting Dog as examples of the latter.)
Elaine adds,
… 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).
You can read the full post by Elaine (the Library Gremlin) here.
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Oooh, you just reminded me of another point. We had this guy who would come in and look at “Real Prison Women.” Wasn’t porn because they were all fully dressed, but definitely creepy. I was more creeped out by that site than most of the topless ones.
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:02 am
This also conjures in my mind a theoretical concept popularly known as “hypodermic needle” theory which suggests that the moment one consumes mass-produced image or words, core messages immediately inject themselves into one’s mind and influence subsequent action. Ironically, this theory is constantly refuted in research; there is positively no way to predict how or if content will influence or motivate. Thus, how that which one community deems “objectionable content” does, might, or can influence mere passers-by cannot be assumed….and the user (abuser?) will most likely find a way to get their objectionable content, library or no library. So how is this software helping? And who are we to judge?
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:49 am
And what if I’m a researcher looking at media representations of women? I worked at an academic library where we had a scholar researching porn, for that matter.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:05 am
I find Elaine’s concerns about library employees viewing patrons’ bank records, etc. to be overblown paranoia. Do you worry that your bank teller is embezzelling from your account because they can see your balance? Do you worry that the transcriptionist for your doctor is documenting your medical records and selling them to your insurance company? We have a professional, ethical responsibility not to abuse information about people that we might come across in our day-to-day work. Don’t we learn that on Day One in library school? Shouldn’t we act like the professionals we profess to be?
June 28th, 2008 at 1:43 am
Why do I have concerns? Because I worked in that library and I know what those workers in the computer room get paid. And they didn’t go to library school. Some of them may not even have gone to college. Not that I think any of them are bad, mind you, but I wouldn’t really trust them to not look at my computer records just for fun. Even if they aren’t selling my information, it’s still no one’s business what I’m buying on Amazon or researching for a project.
I also worked for a credit card company way back when. You wouldn’t believe the abuses that went on. So, I really don’t trust the bank tellers, either. But I keep hoping that people are honest while I check my credit report often.
Paranoid? I guess maybe I am. But I’ve seen too much to trust everyone when I know how many people have access to all of my personal information.