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.