My intent is not to piggy-back posts for the sake of posting, but here goes.
If you have made it this far into this particular blog, then you know that one of our public computers was taken from our building for an investigation into allegations of illegal Internet activity regarding minors....'nuff said.
Not too big of a deal at this point because the local authorities secured the proper paperwork to do so and it was all carried out in a fairly safe and secure manner. But one thing has been sticking with me throughout this whole process. Our public Internet computers do not erase the browsing history until just before midnight for each day that we are open. In order for this to happen, they have to be plugged into our network and basically they are cleared out (cache, cookies, passwords, all of that) and we start carte blanche every day. While there are very practical and technical reasons for this, part of it is also due to the fact that we do not monitor 'behavior' patterns of our patrons on the Internet.
Well...the computer in question was taken from us earlier this year and on the day of the incident, per our library procedures set in place to deal with this, I unplugged the computer from the network and powered it down. Meaning, it left the building before the'dump' (in the afternoon) and the browsing history of every other patron that used the computer prior to the individual who was busted was then made available to the local detectives. Part of what makes this tricky is that our IT department was informed and backed up the files for this individual in question only (meaning for only the time period that he was logged on to the computer) and offered that to the authorities instead. They declined and stated that the language of the subpoena was specific to the computer itself - so we complied.
The computer came back to us this week (hence being pertinent to a timely post) and was wiped clean by all parties involved. But the question remains - did we protect, to the best of our ability, the privacy of the other patrons who used that particular unit, that particular day prior to the incident?
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Where privacy and IF collide...
This is tricky for me. It seems that the post 9/11 world has made privacy the new "black", if you will, especially now that we have FBI director Mueller testifying about thousands of phone numbers obtained through sketchy methods by his agents. I sort of ran into the same situation this week...
While working at the reference desk, I was approached by two women. One of them asked me if I had heard about the missing teenage girl who had supposedly ran away a few days ago (it was in the news apparently). I told her that I had not.
She then explained to me that she was the girl's stepmother and she wanted me to look into our "system" and she if she had been in the library to use the computer or check anything out. The pit in my stomach reached up and started to choke me right in front of them.
I got it together and told them how sorry I was and that this must be a difficult time for them and then went into a very surface level discussion of patron confidentiality based on the RCW and that I could not help them with their request. As you can imagine, the emotional tone of the conversation began to elevate. She then asked for the building manager, who happened to be me at that moment because it was the last hour that we were open and there were only two other part-time librarians and about 12 circ staff members in the building.
So we talked it out - I tried to talk it out anyway. Patron confidentiality is a very very serious issue in our library system, as with most other systems. While there was no way that I was going to do what she was asking me to do - you can imagine the internal conflict that was brewing inside of me as I placed myself in her position. I tried to find any wiggle room possible - asking her if she signed the application as the guardian (since the girl was under 17 when she got her card - per our system's policy). She had not.
Then she told me I was a murderer and would rather see a dead child than cough up a list of her daughter's library activity...
While working at the reference desk, I was approached by two women. One of them asked me if I had heard about the missing teenage girl who had supposedly ran away a few days ago (it was in the news apparently). I told her that I had not.
She then explained to me that she was the girl's stepmother and she wanted me to look into our "system" and she if she had been in the library to use the computer or check anything out. The pit in my stomach reached up and started to choke me right in front of them.
I got it together and told them how sorry I was and that this must be a difficult time for them and then went into a very surface level discussion of patron confidentiality based on the RCW and that I could not help them with their request. As you can imagine, the emotional tone of the conversation began to elevate. She then asked for the building manager, who happened to be me at that moment because it was the last hour that we were open and there were only two other part-time librarians and about 12 circ staff members in the building.
So we talked it out - I tried to talk it out anyway. Patron confidentiality is a very very serious issue in our library system, as with most other systems. While there was no way that I was going to do what she was asking me to do - you can imagine the internal conflict that was brewing inside of me as I placed myself in her position. I tried to find any wiggle room possible - asking her if she signed the application as the guardian (since the girl was under 17 when she got her card - per our system's policy). She had not.
Then she told me I was a murderer and would rather see a dead child than cough up a list of her daughter's library activity...
Sunday, January 17, 2010
What History?
Recently, I was asked to sit in on a review committee for a book that was being challenged in one of our libraries. The book was the graphic novel version of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. The formal complaint that was somewhat legitimate (the rest was a big, messy rant) was that it was too extreme in its socialist viewpoints and that the illustrations were to graphic and should be removed from the shelves.
Interesting....
So I put on my professional cap and enjoyed the 4 hours of paid time that I was given to read the title and respond to the complaint. After all the hooplah, my basic stance was that the library provides a forum for all opinions and political views and it is up to the patrons to make their own decisions. The title was located in one of the adult sections of the library, so I had no issue with the illustrations.
Looking back, I am not sure if that was me speaking or just the version of me that I wanted the patron who was going to read my recommendation to see. I am certain of what I decided about the title because I am certain about the principles that guide me as a librarian and it fell in line with the instruction that we have received.
A bit more direct application can be seen here
I was the librarian who "busted" this individual. I was the librarian who testified in court as to the images that I saw on his computer. I called 911. I called our executive director and attorney. I watched as the computer was taken out of the library after the proper court order had been secured and any other information regarding any other patrons who had used that computer that day was secured as well.
I don't think that there is a lot of instruction that can prepare you to deal with this type of situation. We do NOT monitor computer use. It was pure happenstance and I was helping a patron next to this individual when I unintentionally noticed the images on the screen.
For me, these two situations are what make the principle of intellectual freedom so extraordinary and dynamic - does an individual lose his right to privacy in a public space when he/she violates certain laws? The questions could flow forever and I will be the first person to defend an individual's right to privacy in the library, but this situation has me thinking.....where is that line?
Interesting....
So I put on my professional cap and enjoyed the 4 hours of paid time that I was given to read the title and respond to the complaint. After all the hooplah, my basic stance was that the library provides a forum for all opinions and political views and it is up to the patrons to make their own decisions. The title was located in one of the adult sections of the library, so I had no issue with the illustrations.
Looking back, I am not sure if that was me speaking or just the version of me that I wanted the patron who was going to read my recommendation to see. I am certain of what I decided about the title because I am certain about the principles that guide me as a librarian and it fell in line with the instruction that we have received.
A bit more direct application can be seen here
I was the librarian who "busted" this individual. I was the librarian who testified in court as to the images that I saw on his computer. I called 911. I called our executive director and attorney. I watched as the computer was taken out of the library after the proper court order had been secured and any other information regarding any other patrons who had used that computer that day was secured as well.
I don't think that there is a lot of instruction that can prepare you to deal with this type of situation. We do NOT monitor computer use. It was pure happenstance and I was helping a patron next to this individual when I unintentionally noticed the images on the screen.
For me, these two situations are what make the principle of intellectual freedom so extraordinary and dynamic - does an individual lose his right to privacy in a public space when he/she violates certain laws? The questions could flow forever and I will be the first person to defend an individual's right to privacy in the library, but this situation has me thinking.....where is that line?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
