Intellectual Freedom

The American Library Association’s Code of Ethics states that “II. We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources.” Libraries foster a democratic society because they allow all forms of information to flow freely and provide many sources of information for whomever is doing the seeking. Libraries are not partial to censorship or one way of thinking. While there have been many occasions where this particular part of the Code of Ethics was challenged, in general libraries try to stay away from allowing anyone to dictate what may and may not be available at the library. The third rule in the Code of Ethics has to do with privacy: “We protect each library user’s right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received…” Thankfully, libraries see the benefit of privacy in the information age. Librarians are still eager to help anyone who asks for help in finding information that they seek, and are fiercely protective of a patrons’ right to privacy. My work in a public library has taught me just how important this relationship is between a patron and a librarian; survival of democracy depends upon an individual’s right to seek any information they wish without fear of reprisal. Democracy depends on a variety of opinions and ways of thinking; that’s how the checks and balances work. To deny the right to information would be to deny the very idea of democracy itself, and every one of the rules in the Code of Ethics from the American Library Association aims to make sure that there is never any confusion over whether or not information is free and open to anyone who wishes to find it.

I do not think people would stop using libraries if records became transparent, but I think there would be a sharp decrease in use based on principle alone. We value privacy even when we don’t think about how much protection we have. While working at the library, I have never heard a patron say “will anyone be able to view what I check out, or what I browse online?” They are comfortable in the idea that we would never jeopardize their trust by allowing just anyone to view what they check out. While there might not be a serious repercussions about checking out the new Mitch Albom novel, more politically or religiously charged books might cause a stir for some people with say, their jobs, or their extended family life. Even though no one ever brings up the privacy factor or even asks if their records are private, if one day, we were to hang a sign on the door that read “A notice to all patrons: records are now available to view publicly” there would be quite an uproar. I would foresee many people closing their library card accounts, and even more people being more careful about what they check out altogether. Library circulation would decreases dramatically, and foot traffic in general would probably be dismal. Overall, transparency in libraries would be a terrible idea; libraries pride themselves on being a beacon for those who seek information to do it discreetly and safely, and allowing that would most definitely stifle many people’s intellectual freedoms.

Sources:

http://www.ala.org/advocacy/proethics/codeofethics/codeethics

Week 7

Transparency on the Internet is not for me. I think, first and foremost, it fosters an environment ripe for identity theft. The more information you supply about yourself, your family, and your everyday life, the easier it is for some to string together the pieces of what make you, you, and use it for negative gains. When I call places like my bank or cell phone company, they generally ask me to recite my full name, address, phone number, and date of birth. But this is all easily accessed information, without even having to search very hard for it. It’s actually somewhat frightening to see how easily my address can be found. Just because no one else seems to care that their personal information is readily displayed, does not mean that I’m okay with mine being out there. There should always be an opt-in option for such things, not an opt-out once information is noticed.

When our textbook was written, the Internet was widely used but not nearly as widely used as it is today. As such, libel and slander problems have only gotten worse. People are under the impression that anything can be said on the Internet with no consequences, and because their name isn’t attached they believe it is anonymous and no one will find out who actually posted false information. While ISP addresses can help determine if a home computer may have been used in more severe cases, if information was transferred to the Internet through library use, there would be almost no way of finding the perpetrator. I’m not sure if it’s like this in all libraries, but in mine, the sign-up sheet is shredded at the end of the day; laws regarding protection of anonymity in libraries make it almost impossible to gain any sort of information that could lead to finding the exact person who committed an Internet crime. Obviously, I think if someone commits a crime they should receive the just punishment that is due. However, there should not be a violation of any laws regarding privacy in libraries. So this is a confusing issue for me, and one that I will continue to think about. Why did we become a society that feels we can say anything if our name isn’t attached to it? Why do people make up lies and say hateful things, knowing that there is a good chance no one will ever find out who wrote it? Anonymity on the Internet can be a good quality; things like surveys about embarrassing, sensitive medical information are best kept anonymous. But society in general needs to hold themselves more accountable for their actions on the Internet; if you could not say it to the person’s face, then don’t say it online. How simple this advice is, and yet it seems to be, for some, more and more difficult to follow it. 

Mother Maturity and My Distaste for Conspiracy Theories

      The data.gov website is such a wonderful resource that I didn’t know about until this course. As a current employee of a public library, this is an essential database to know about, and I’m a little disappointed that it hasn’t been something I could have utilized sooner. We get a lot of patrons who come in to read Consumer Reports; so many that they are for reference use only and cannot leave the main section of the library. I have had more than one patron come in asking for information about certain products and the best way to find information about said products; I'm glad I now have this resource to offer; it will be a great aid in finding the best information for patrons needs. 

      There is always a potential danger to information; or rather, too much information. I think the problem lies in our ability to handle the loads of information, good and bad, that we are bombarded with everyday. Aunt Frailty doesn’t want any information because she is ‘frail,’ or too weak to handle it. Cosmopolitanism has absorbed too much information, and doesn’t know how to sort out what’s good, true, or right. Mother Maturity is the perfect medium; she realizes that there is a limit to how much information we can take, and when it can be absorbed. That is why she lets her children listen to some of it, and to experience the gifts that are generally unavailable in their everyday lives. On a personal level, I definitely need a happy medium. There are times when I read news often throughout the day, about a variety of subjects. Then I become upset because there is so much that is wrong in our world that I can do nothing about, and I get despondent over feeling so helpless. Stepping away from a constant surge of information is good and necessary; but never knowing anything, never being engaged in our society and all the information it has to offer is just as bad as being over-sensitized.

      I spent a embarrassing amount of time reading articles on Project Censored. The sensible part of me feels like Project Censored is a cesspool of conspiracy theories by people who have some sort of convoluted idea that our government is capable of so much secrecy. I’m not saying the government is incapable of keeping anything secret, but I really don’t think the deceit is as dire as some people believe it to be. The skeptical part of me wants to believe that at least some of these news stories are fact, because why would someone write things just to stir up trouble? But the more I read, the more I get a sense of fear mongering. I just can’t and won’t believe that if much of the information they are reporting is true, that it wouldn’t be reported somewhere, ANYWHERE else. I do not believe that the government is out to get me, and this website is too ‘fear Big Brother’ for me to take very seriously. As a librarian in training, I always try to give some benefit of the doubt to any source of information I find, whether in print or digital. But I’m not so sure about this one…I guess the biggest thing it has going for it is an ongoing thread of criticism. The textbook talks about the idea that criticism is essential for a transparent society to be held accountable for its actions, rules, and regulations. Criticism is great: it’s what drives our government to govern better, and citizens to be more engaged. But criticism of things that are untrue, or unimportant, is a waste of time, energy, and resources. I think it also ruins reputations. 

Looking Myself Up on Google

            My first concern upon finding my name on zabasearch.com was that for a small fee, one could get a great deal of information about my life. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it’s not that difficult to find this information even if it wasn’t available on the Internet. It’s all free, and open access, information. The only difference is that on zabasearch.com it is all comprised in one place, whereas one would usually have to find the information in many different places (White Pages, district court dockets, birth announcements, etc.). Very little comes up about me when I search my name in Google; my Google+ page, an article about making Dean’s List, and my Linked In profile are just about the only links. Since I think I may be the only Faith-Anne Phoebe in the US (at least the only one that has any sort of online presence) it is sort of unnerving; I can’t take comfort in the fact that there are hundreds of other Faith-Anne Phoebes that these links could be about, and someone searching the name could easily find quite a bit of information about me.

        

         My ‘aha’ moment of the week came while reading the textbook. One simple phrase made so much sense as soon as I read it: “There was no golden age of privacy” (Brin 70). I think that sums up so much of what we have been studying already, and will continue to study for the rest of the course. So often, I hear people reference 'Big Brother' when talking about the state of our current society and privacy issues. But the textbook references the bizarre and intrusive questions asked by the census bureau not all that long ago; how is that any better than being able to find my old addresses for the price of $14.95 on a random website?

           

         I feel the same way about my privacy that I have already seen referenced a few times in the textbook: I’m boring. There is nothing interesting or strange about me, so what do I care if a database in a nameless warehouse keeps track of my purchases at the local grocery store? At worst, it will track that I’ve bought a product that might be deemed embarrassing—and I’m pretty much past the point in my life that a grocery store purchase contains something of embarrassment. At best, I get coupons tailored to my shopping habits. There was a point in my life where I feared for my privacy. But the more I think about it, the less I worry. Brin made many predictions that have actually come to fruition (and I’m only on chapter 5, so I can only assume there will be more to come), and they aren’t nearly as bad as sensationalism had made them out to be. I would actually say the more I learn in the course, the less nervous I am about privacy; I suppose it’s because the more I learn, the more I understand how unfounded that fear can be. We need to be held accountable for our lives and choices; we live in a connected society that becomes more connected each day. I think it can be good that information is more readily accessible, to a point; if everyday citizens see that a more open society isn’t a bad thing, then we can hold the ‘secretive’ areas of our society (banks, government) more accountable for their actions and decisions. 

Week 3

For as long as the Internet has been used for social purposes, I've been a part of it. From instant messaging in the earlier days, to Myspace in the first years of social media, I've had some place in the social aspect of Internet life. I've seen the limits of information policy, no matter how trivial it seemed (Myspace groups were fairly limited to the topic of the group, and if I recall correctly, swear words were either not permitted or severely frowned upon). Is this a bad thing? Probably not. It does limit the freedom of what one could do, but there were always options around it. Just as there are options today. No longer a Myspace society, we now content ourselves with Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit. These social media sites are far more lax with their profanity policies, but there are still repercussions toward information that others do not want to see, or do not think is appropriate. Nudity on Facebook? Forget it. Want to talk positively about Christianity? Don't do it in the atheism section of Reddit. Am I saying that I do not think the Internet is a "supremely open and connecting system"? Quite the opposite. But just like the real world, there is a time and a place for everything. Passions and differences are celebrated on the Internet, far more than they are in our everyday lives.

I do, however, wonder if 'the age of knowledge' is detrimental to our society or a betterment. When you can find a niche space on the Internet for everything, you can start to feel self-important. I don't think it creates empathy, I think it hinders it. When all you see or know about is what you want to see or know about, there is a vast world of knowledge you aren't getting, and a large group of people outside of your bubble with different stories, and passions, that you aren't getting a chance to understand. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be different, or wanting to celebrate it. What is wrong, is to choose to extract oneself from situations in which diversity is the rule, not the exception. I do think the Internet can do that, and it does end up creating limitations where there are supposed to be none.

While reading "Wasting Time is New Divide in Digital Era" I thought of my job at the local public library, and the socioeconomic status of those people who use the computers. People who come to the library for computer use generally cannot afford to have a personal computer in their home; or, they may own a computer but lack Internet access. The article makes a good point about technology becoming a commodity for wasting time. How often do we find ourselves watching a television show while simultaneously surfing the Internet? It's not a good thing, to waste time. Especially with how much time we are wasting. Do I think it's a good idea to provide computer/Internet access to every person? Well, that's a tough question. Most kids actually need computer and Internet access for homework these days. But is it necessary? Should a student be penalized for not having those things? I'm conflicted with that argument, if only for the fact that I see how much time I waste, and I don't think it's a good thing, nor do I wish for others to waste as much time as I know I do. I'm hoping the time wasting is a phase, like technology will go through. But who knows....

TED Talk and Chapter 1

            As I watched the TED Talk and read the first chapter of our textbook, I was struck by how much of the information in both of those resources was so relevant. It is strange to see how right Kevin Kelly has been in predicting what the next 5000 days might hold for the Web and our world in general. What I found most interesting, however, is how optimistic he was about the coming changes. He didn’t see an information shift as a problematic endeavor; it seemed that he saw it as an opportunity to move forward and become more connected with one another. So often we think about more sharing, and less privacy, as an invasion of our civil liberties. We don’t want Big Brother taking away our right to live our lives in private, yet we don’t know how to stop this path we are on toward a more open society. Our obsession with things like social media have created a need for the burden of over-sharing, yet we complain that we would not like our business being accessible for anyone who wishes to find it. I am guilty of this, and I'll admit it. I’m a huge Instagram fan, and I love to tag myself and my friends at various places on Facebook. But when I Google my name and find an article about being on the Dean’s List in college…well, it makes me more than a little uncomfortable. I guess my problem with Kevin Kelly’s optimism toward an open information society is that some of that information, I did not choose to share. If I want to create a page that lists all of my past medical records, I’m obviously okay with people looking for the information. But if someone I do not know, with access to my personal information, puts that information in some open access database without my consent in an effort to form some sort of arbitrarily ‘free’ society (free because we no longer have secrets or things that are kept from anyone who wants the information), I would have a problem with that. The difference is choosing to share.

            This thought brings me back to the textbook, and choosing between the two societies. Of course, when I first read it I chose the society in which I knew I was being watched. It wouldn’t necessarily make me feel better because I would know I had no privacy in the open, but at the very least I wouldn’t feel that my trust was being taken advantage of. Even after reflecting upon the comment on page 25 about trading something for a feeling of security or a little less fear, I would not take the other society over the one where I knew about the cameras. There are times when I feel safer when I know there are cameras; my alma mater was in a city that had a high crime rate and I will not deny that I felt safer walking around campus at night knowing that there were cameras around campus, and call stations if necessary. But if I were told there were no cameras, yet had some lingering suspicions that I was still being watched, I would not feel as good about it.  

            Am I eager to see what the next few years hold for the Web, and technology in general? Yes and no. While I am eager to see the advances our modern society can create (after all, this video was filmed not too long after the first iPhone came out, and think of how far that has advanced since its inception), I am hesitant to give up more than what I have already given. I grew up in a strange time; I had a childhood not dominated by technology the way it is today, yet I am young enough that I pick up technology quickly. I grew up as technology and the Internet advanced, so I understand the value of wanting to reject technological advancements while still having a desire to see what comes next, to look forward to those advancements. The chapters of our textbook are really affirming all the concerns I have heard for advancement and gradual loss of freedom over the past few years; it is very interesting to read about it in a voice that doesn’t know what the years between 1998 and 2014 hold. SO much changed in that small period of time; it’s almost comical at times to read parts of the book and know exactly what predictions came true.