According to Rubin (2010), the ALA has long affirmed the right to privacy for library users (p. 390). From protecting a library user’s personally information to what material a user circulates, the belief that patron’s actions within the walls of a library are private and confidential is a core ethical principle of the library profession. With the belief that library patrons will not feel free to use library materials or research controversial topics if a library user does not feel free of governmental spying or the risk of public exposure, the collection of personally identifying information should be limited to what is necessary to complete the day-to-day operations of the library (Rubin, 2010, p.391).
In Georgia PINES libraries, library
patrons are asked for proof of residency and contact information in
order to register for a library card. PINES policy however prohibits the
use of a Social Security card as a method of identification. The
information retained about a library patron is used solely to contact a
user in regards to ILL/PINES holds, contact a patron in regards to late
fees/overdue materials, or to contact a patron in regards to
collections. In this same regard, e-mail addresses may be added to an
account, and users may opt-in to e-mails from the library in regard to
library news. In PINES libraries, the only record of what a user
checks out is related to what a patron currently has checked out, any
outstanding fees for overdue materials and the materials that those fees
are attached to. It is possible to look at the last user that checked
out a specific item, however once fees are paid for that record is not
attached to an account and is only viewed in an items details. This is
so that if it is found that an item is damaged, the last user may be
tracked down for billing, but if a patron asks for a list of what they
have checked out in the past, this information is not accessible. In
addition, patron account information cannot be given out to law
enforcement without a court-ordered subpoena.
Noticeably lacking in the weekly readings were the use of Internet connected
computers by library patrons. In my library system we have measures in
place to protect user’s information on our public access computers. For
instance we use Faronics' Deep Freeze to hard-image our PCS in order to make sure that any data or open
login sessions that a patron might have on our PCs is erased as soon as
the computer is rebooted, yet at the same time our system’s computer use
policy specifically states that library users accessing computers are
under no obligation to privacy or confidentiality.
Our Network
Administrator states that this is so that the library can remain in
accordance with the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which he
states we legally have to abide by in order to receive State funding, but what this translates to is that at any
time a library worker can go and monitor what a patron is doing on the
computer they are logged in to and that at any time our Network
Administrator may remotely access a computer through software like TeamViewer to monitor what they are
doing regardless of suspicion or activity (downloading music, accessing
pornography—a violation of our policy, installing software, filing
taxes, writing resumes, etc.).
This
would seem to me to be in a direct violation of the ALA’s standards and ethical codes in regards to privacy and confidentiality, and would seem
to go along with what Solove (2008) was conveying through the words of
Deborah Caldwell-Stone:
“Libraries
are under increasing pressure to discard this longstanding commitment
to readers' privacy rights. Law-enforcement agencies are exploiting
fears about terrorism and child safety to encourage lawmakers to strip
away statutory privacy protections for library records, eliminate
anonymity in the library, and encourage the philosophy that "good"
people should have nothing to hide. Federal laws use gag orders and
national security claims to prevent judicial review of potential privacy
abuses.” (p.58)
Different states and different libraries however approach computer privacy issues differently, some standing up for patron's right to the free access and flow to information, while other States further restrict user access:
How Texas and Arizona view things.
How Colorado views things.
In addition to Public Library employees in Georgia being exploited to fears about of child safety in regards to CIPA, public library workers as of July 1, 2012, are now required to be “mandatory reporters.” As mandatory reporters, if any library employee suspects a child or teen of being abused mentally, physically, or sexually…or even suspected of being neglected, we are to report that patron to our local Department of Family and Child Services (DFCS) agency. Failure to do so and you are at the risk of fines and/or jail-time. In my opinion being mandatory reporters is a clear violation of maintaining a library user’s privacy and confidentiality.
When I first started working at my current library,
one of my first patron’s that I assisted was checking out several
materials that dealt with surviving domestic violence. In addition, the
patron had visible bruises on her body. At the time I made the comment
to a co-worker that “sometimes I wish we didn’t have to see what a
person checks out, because there is nothing we can do to help them.” I
ended up in a disciplinary hearing with our then Director, because the
co-worker somehow interpreted what I was saying to being pro-domestic
violence, however my then Director understood where I was coming from
and I didn’t get written up for it, but was given the advice that I
should never talk about what a patron checks out, regardless of my
personal feelings (even though I am doing it now), and this is spelled
out clearly in the ALA’s code of ethics. Yet, according to our status as
mandatory reporters, if this woman had been under the age of 18 I would
have legally been obligated to report her to DFCS!
Personally, I think the ALA, GLA, PLA, etc. need to
revise their standards to incorporate patron privacy when it comes to
computers; otherwise, if we sacrifice our principles to one aspect of
library use, we run the risk to sacrificing our principles entirely. Luckily it seems as though the ALA's office of Intellectual Freedom recognizes this double standard, and it seems as though as of 2012 it has become a top priority. Maybe in the next edition of Rubin's Foundations I will have less to be concerned about?
What do you the reader think? Is it a double standard to treat patron records as confidential while at the same time not treating their internet use the same? Further, when, if ever is it ever ethically ok to check a person's usb drive for content? Never? If you are trying to track down the owner of a lost drive? What happens if you look at a patron's drive contents and there is questionable content such as child pornography or pirated music, do you turn the owner in to the authorities, or do you maintain your ethical principles to respect the patrons privacy?
What do you the reader think? Is it a double standard to treat patron records as confidential while at the same time not treating their internet use the same? Further, when, if ever is it ever ethically ok to check a person's usb drive for content? Never? If you are trying to track down the owner of a lost drive? What happens if you look at a patron's drive contents and there is questionable content such as child pornography or pirated music, do you turn the owner in to the authorities, or do you maintain your ethical principles to respect the patrons privacy?
References:
Rubin, R. E. (2010) Foundations of Library Science. (3rd Ed). New York: Neal-Schuman.
Solove, D. J., (2008, Sept.) The Future of Privacy. American Libraries, 39(8): 56-59.
No comments:
Post a Comment