Library Interent Filters

[King of the Americas]

Alright, I'll conceed defeat.

If a Librarian of 30 years experience says that eliminating CD's, DVD's and public Internet access will not impeed the flow of information to peoples, then I'll accept that. People existed before these things, so if they were cut of from them again, I guess they'd get by.

I guess people don't deserve, or rather I guess Library staff members really don't have any 'obligation' to help you find the information you are looking for...which is to say the least 'shocking' to me.

I always operated on a first come first serve basis. I'd help a patron, until they were 'helped', within my ability to do so. After which, I'd assist the next patron. 'I' always found it rude of another patron to insert themself into an exchange where I was already busy with another patron, or to stand right next to me waiting for me to be done, close enough to hear the first comer's questions.

Again, I think the sole thing I am in the Library to protect is people's privacy...

As for how I handles this particular situation, well I'd also conceed that I could have handled things 'better', however this woman repeatedly put her granddaughter right in front of an unfiltered Interent portal...and I saw her on many occasions looking over patrons' shoulders at their screen, almost waiting for something to offend her.

I mean every Saturday, she'd sit in the same place and take part in the same behavior, so when she came up to me to make the complaint, I smiled.

Yes this was wrong, and is probably evidence that 'I' am not the type to be working or volunteering in a Library. Because, 'I' believe that if you are offended by what someone else is doing or looking at in a Library, then it is no one's fault but YOUR's.

I believe that people have a right to privacy, in a Library. This instance only occured because the Board refused to accept the notion of patron privacy, and take my suggestion to install privacy screens.

Thank you LibraryLady, for your honesty and insight.

If you and your stance is the example of what a Librarian is, then maybe Library Sciences are something I should avoid.

 

[Segnosaur]

I guess people don't deserve, or rather I guess Library staff members really don't have any 'obligation' to help you find the information you are looking for...which is to say the least 'shocking' to me.

Where exactly did she say she had no 'obligation' to help people? She said she would have to "balance her responses". So, rather than serve people on a first-come, first-serve basis, it sounds like she may help people with quick requests first, then work on the more complex requests. (If their requests were going to take several hours, then having to wait an extra few minutes is not significant, but if someone has a 1 minute request, waiting 2 hours IS significant.). Its certainly not an uncommon practice in various service industries. That's why grocery stores have the "8-items or less" line.

'I' always found it rude of another patron to insert themselves into an exchange where I was already busy with another patron, or to stand right next to me waiting for me to be done, close enough to hear the first comer's questions.

Yes, that is rude. Its rude in the library, its rude in stores, its rude in the elevator. But then, its also irrelevant. She wasn't suggesting automatically serving people who inject themselves into the conversation.

As for how I handles this particular situation, well I'd also conceed that I could have handled things 'better', however this woman repeatedly put her granddaughter right in front of an unfiltered Interent portal...and I saw her on many occasions looking over patrons' shoulders at their screen, almost waiting for something to offend her.

I mean every Saturday, she'd sit in the same place and take part in the same behavior, so when she came up to me to make the complaint, I smiled.

Isn't that interfering with her right to privacy, by A) observing her so often, then B) telling us about her activities? Or does people's right to privacy only affect those you like or agree with?

Yes this was wrong, and is probably evidence that 'I' am not the type to be working or volunteering in a Library. Because, 'I' believe that if you are offended by what someone else is doing or looking at in a Library, then it is no one's fault but YOUR's.

Hypothetical situation... you're in some library that has internet access... you are respectful and don't look at other people's screens... someone gets up to leave and you go to take their place, only to find they've left the web page on some hardcore sex page (think... "Debbie does Rex".) Should you have the right to be offended by what you see? (After all, the person in that situation did not try to invade people's privacy. In fact, the person leaving the computer may have left the web page on a pr0n page with the explicit purpose of shocking the next person to use it.)

Another question... if you were a parent, would you feel more or less safe letting your kids use the library, if you knew they could potentially be exposed to obscene material in that way?

Thank you LibraryLady, for your honesty and insight.

If you and your stance is the example of what a Librarian is, then maybe Library Sciences are something I should avoid.

Actually, I'd suggest avoiding ANY situation where you have to deal with the public. Dogma and the act of providing services do not work well together.

 

[LibraryLady]

Alright, I'll conceed defeat.

If a Librarian of 30 years experience says that eliminating CD's, DVD's and public Internet access will not impeed the flow of information to peoples, then I'll accept that. People existed before these things, so if they were cut of from them again, I guess they'd get by.

I guess people don't deserve, or rather I guess Library staff members really don't have any 'obligation' to help you find the information you are looking for...which is to say the least 'shocking' to me.

I think you have misread what I have said. You had asked if people would be able to access information and current events if they did not have access to DVDs and other new technology, and the answer was yes. I did not say anything about whether or not I should help people find information. That is my job, and I do it all day long, ranging from a seven letter word meaning "too" to interpretation of Kafka's prose. All other librarians I know do this as well.

I always operated on a first come first serve basis. I'd help a patron, until they were 'helped', within my ability to do so. After which, I'd assist the next patron. 'I' always found it rude of another patron to insert themself into an exchange where I was already busy with another patron, or to stand right next to me waiting for me to be done, close enough to hear the first comer's questions.

Actually, first come first served doesn't always suffice. If I have someone with a long and complicated question, I usually ask other people waiting if they have a quick question. I have never had anyone complain, especially if someone else's question is "Where is the bathroom?" I always tell the patron with the difficult question that I am clearing the way so I can spend some time with him.

Again, I think the sole thing I am in the Library to protect is people's privacy...

As for how I handles this particular situation, well I'd also conceed that I could have handled things 'better', however this woman repeatedly put her granddaughter right in front of an unfiltered Interent portal...and I saw her on many occasions looking over patrons' shoulders at their screen, almost waiting for something to offend her.

I mean every Saturday, she'd sit in the same place and take part in the same behavior, so when she came up to me to make the complaint, I smiled.

Yes this was wrong, and is probably evidence that 'I' am not the type to be working or volunteering in a Library. Because, 'I' believe that if you are offended by what someone else is doing or looking at in a Library, then it is no one's fault but YOUR's.

I believe that people have a right to privacy, in a Library. This instance only occured because the Board refused to accept the notion of patron privacy, and take my suggestion to install privacy screens.

I, on the other hand, feel my primary responsibility is to provide the citizenry with access to information, in accordance with Thomas Jefferson's principle that that is the basis of democracy. Privacy is paramount; you and I agree there. However, people also need to take responsibility for following the rules of the library.

Thank you LibraryLady, for your honesty and insight.

If you and your stance is the example of what a Librarian is, then maybe Library Sciences are something I should avoid.

I am sorry you feel that way.


ETA: To Segnosaur: Please stop beating me to the punch!

 

[King of the Americas]

LibraryLady,

So, you don't turn people away, you just put them at the end of the line, if their request is a complicated one. That's cool, I get that, and would do the same.

When 'I' received a request, I made it my job to fulfill it, and to try to do so in a confidential manner, regardless of the nature the request.

That is what I considered MY 'obligation', as a Library Volunteer. And to date, none of my patrons ever left empty handed, or without the knowledge that the item they wanted was on its way.

---

Our Internet access is tucked away into a corner, with only one station clearly visible to passers by. Behind this singular station is a table and two chairs, and is easily the loudest table in the Library. Meaning that it is near the circulation desk, the movies, and CD's. It is a table ill-suited for private study or contemplation. It is also the view 90 degrees from my work station, and our Library is small. I didn't have to be 'actively monitoring' her to see what she did a lot of in our Library.

I supervised Saturdays, and every weekend that she sat, within arm's length of an un-filtered interent portal.

I think she got what she expected to.

She and the Board both believed that MY immediate duty, upon receipt of her complaint was to turn the boy's screen off and kick him out of the Library.

My 'noting' or suggesting that she keep her eyes on HER research, to keep from being offended in the future, is what got me suspended.

This entire thing happened because our Library does not care enough about patron privacy, and I had to quit because I think it is the second founding principle of a Library.

 

[LibraryLady]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thing your misreading of my replies might be deliberate. Bearing that in mind, I don't think I'll continue this discussion. I wish you luck in your future ventures.

 

[King of the Americas]

I meant no offense, in my mis-reading.

I 'thought' I understood you in your 'dispensing' of your time and energy.

I was merely noting what 'I' thought MY 'obligations' were.

As I said before, I'll conceed to your experience and knowledge upon this topic.

 

[King of the Americas]

I just read this whole post, and I'd like apologize to Segnosaur. I DID ignore the crux of his argument. *The elimination of redundancy.

That said, I'd like to make the argument, that my emotions failed to allow to make. During the time of this discussion, I was in a very trying state of events.

Segnosaur, I should have never told you to shut up. That was totally uncalled for.

Now, back to the discussion:

You wanted to eliminate redundancy, by NOT spending money on things that can be found in other free services, TV & radio broadcasts, or internet cafes.

I held, and still DO hold, that "less public access" = "less access for the poor".

I've already noted that movies aired on TV are first formatted for TV. Meaning that it isn't presented in widescreen, AND it is edited for time and content. This is censorship at its finest, something libraries are supposed to fit against. Second you CAN hear a song or two from an artist, but at the library you get the whole album. With these alternatives to libraries, you aren't getting the original work, or even all of it.

Libraries aren't endless empty shelves, waiting to be filled. Space is limited. When we get a new book, that usually means an old one has to come off.

Seg, you proposed that we rid ourselves of basically ALL of our digital media, even the internet. These are some of our most valuable resources, because they are small and contain TONS of information.

The internet, for example, is the world at your fingertips. This site, for me, is an invaluable resource, one that offers endless potential. And you want to 'stop' offering this service at public libraries, in hopes that a private vender will offer such pay-to-use services?

And this is where I should have wagged my finger at "LibraryLady". She sided against me and my argument because I wasn't 'polite', among other things. She is decidedly "old school", and didn't entirely embrace the digital revolution, being highly skeptical of the Internet. But she did find herself to here, so maybe all isn't lost.

After re-reading the thread, I did want to pose a question to L.L.:

You mentioned that you were proud of the atheist collection you've built, in lou of not being asked for such material. The retort was made in response to my contention that Libraries should be a 'direct' representative of the requests made upon it. What other areas do you add to that aren't requested? I am suggesting that it is 'wrong' to add material that hasn't been requested. That to me seems truly wasteful. If a town was made up of catholics, how much sense would it make to to fill the shelves with Muslim or Hindu study guides, in an attempt at 'balance'? Libraries should be filled by material that HAS been requested.

The conclusion here is that more access = MORE ACCESS & less access = LESS ACCESS.

It makes no sense to eliminate the most efficient information storage devices and tools we have available, and literally cut people off from information they are presently requesting.

Again, Sorry "LibraryLady" & "Segnosaur" for my impolite and emotional responses. They were inappropriate and uncalled for.

 

[Kestrel]

Here's a question that may seem a little strange....

What exactly is the purpose of a library?

Should a library be all things to all people? (i.e. should it provide all types of media, for both pure entertainment, learning, and, in the case of the kid viewing 'adult' web content, sexual fantasy material? Or should the ultimate goal of the library be more restricted, to areas of academic interest and/or archiving?

Several decades ago, I'd say the library SHOULD have been "all things to all people". But in today's world, there ARE alternatives... the internet (and, lets face it, it is relatively cheap to get access to the internet these days), an ever-expanding number of channels on TV, video stores rent movies including documentaries, etc. Perhaps libraries should refocus their efforts, and instead of trying to compete with other sources of knowledge/entertainment, restrict themselves to more academic materials. And, if they do, perhaps all internet access should be removed from the library.

I have no objection to adult material. (I've seen a lot of it myself.) And of course libraries should not shy away from more mature material if it has some sort of academic purpose. My only concern is "Should we (as taxpayers) be subsidizing other people's entertainment habits?"

Operating an internet connection with filters is a lot more expensive than operating a free and open connection. Your real concern as a taxpayer should be that we are spending money to subsidize prudes.

 

[Harpyja]

I've got to disagree with the OP.

If you're going to watch porn, do it on your own time.

Not that I say that there should be filters. I just don't think that it's appropriate for a public library, unless the library also provides pornographic material. Think about it - legally, are you allowed to display pin-ups in public areas with tax payer money, even if a patron requested it? Not to mention the fact that it would probably make the majority of the patrons uncomfortable, not just one person. It's common sense and decency that's not just limited to the far right.

Also - I'd imagine that the library would have to spend a fair bit of money replacing sticky keyboards.

 

[King of the Americas]

I've got to disagree with the OP.

If you're going to watch porn, do it on your own time.

Not that I say that there should be filters. I just don't think that it's appropriate for a public library, unless the library also provides pornographic material. Think about it - legally, are you allowed to display pin-ups in public areas with tax payer money, even if a patron requested it? Not to mention the fact that it would probably make the majority of the patrons uncomfortable, not just one person. It's common sense and decency that's not just limited to the far right.

Also - I'd imagine that the library would have to spend a fair bit of money replacing sticky keyboards.

WHATEVER you view/read in a Library 'should' be YOUR business, and of no concern to anyone else, period.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

 

[Segnosaur]

Operating an internet connection with filters is a lot more expensive than operating a free and open connection. Your real concern as a taxpayer should be that we are spending money to subsidize prudes.

Yes, and you know what would be even cheaper? Not operating an internet connection AT ALL.

If you go back and read the thread in its entirty, I was not arguing for or against internet filters, I was arguing against the need to have internet connections AT ALL.

 

[Kestrel]

Yes, and you know what would be even cheaper? Not operating an internet connection AT ALL.

If you go back and read the thread in its entirty, I was not arguing for or against internet filters, I was arguing against the need to have internet connections AT ALL.

Not having a library at all would save even more money. As would shutting down the police station, the fire department and the public schools.

But in terms of providing public access to information at low cost, an internet connection at the library is one of the best bargains around.

 

[Segnosaur]

Hmmm... return of the zombie thread...

I've already noted that movies aired on TV are first formatted for TV. Meaning that it isn't presented in widescreen, AND it is edited for time and content. This is censorship at its finest, something libraries are supposed to fit against. Second you CAN hear a song or two from an artist, but at the library you get the whole album. With these alternatives to libraries, you aren't getting the original work, or even all of it.

Yes, what a person sees on TV or hears on the radio may differ slightly from content available on CDs/DVDs.

However, similar arguments can be made for pretty much ALL material that the library may hold:
- Books (especially ones outside the 'bestseller' list may be difficult if not impossible to find at your local bookstore
- Because the content of books is copyrighted, you may not have any alternative to accessing the content EXCEPT on paper
So, we have limited resources (i.e. library funding), and we have to decide what is a more serious problem: the video viewer who simply doesn't like the fact that his movie is 'edited for TV' (giving 90% of the content they'd otherwise get), or the book reader who wouldn't have access to ANY of the material.

Seg, you proposed that we rid ourselves of basically ALL of our digital media, even the internet. These are some of our most valuable resources, because they are small and contain TONS of information.

I never said "society" as a whole needs to rid themselves of digital media... I said that it is probably not necessary for libraries to provide that type of access.

The internet, for example, is the world at your fingertips. This site, for me, is an invaluable resource, one that offers endless potential. And you want to 'stop' offering this service at public libraries, in hopes that a private vender will offer such pay-to-use services?

Private venders DO offer such services. So do many other non-profit and government organizations (schools, 'freenet' organizations, etc.)

And this is where I should have wagged my finger at "LibraryLady". She sided against me and my argument because I wasn't 'polite', among other things. She is decidedly "old school", and didn't entirely embrace the digital revolution, being highly skeptical of the Internet. But she did find herself to here, so maybe all isn't lost.

I am a computer programmer. I've been working in the field for over 15 years. I was dealing with the 'internet' back when you could map the internet based on the interconnection of 56k lines, and I still deal with web content.

Being familiar with technology (even wanting to promote it) doesn't necessarily mean that one should push its use in ALL areas.

It makes no sense to eliminate the most efficient information storage devices and tools we have available, and literally cut people off from information they are presently requesting.

I'd have to ask.. why exactly are people "requesting" the information? You seem to think all 'requests' should be given equal weight. I think that any 'requests' should be weighted, whereby requests for material that is difficult or impossible to find through alternatives (e.g. books that were traditionally carried by the library) should be given higher precidence where multiple alternatives DO exist (even if those alternatives are not optimal, its better to have an imperfect alternative than none at all.)

 

[Segnosaur]

If you go back and read the thread in its entirty, I was not arguing for or against internet filters, I was arguing against the need to have internet connections AT ALL.

Not having a library at all would save even more money. As would shutting down the police station, the fire department and the public schools.

But unlike police or fire services, there are ALTERNATIVES to having free internet connections at the library....internet cafes, students with connectons at school, community freenets, etc.

But in terms of providing public access to information at low cost, an internet connection at the library is one of the best bargains around.

The fact that its 'low cost' doesn't necessarily mean that the cost to the library is zero. Thus, they have to make decsions on how to allocate resources: Spend the money on a computer and internet connection (replicating the services that a person can get from their local internet cafe, or available free through a community freenet), or spend the money on actual paper books, which may not be as good a 'bargin', but which may be more difficult for many people to access otherwise.

 

[Dancing David]

Operating an internet connection with filters is a lot more expensive than operating a free and open connection. Your real concern as a taxpayer should be that we are spending money to subsidize prudes.

Except for the fact that then your machines will be buggy as all heck. A filter respects the community mores of what should be publically available at a library.

Not always in line with free speech at all.

My library doesn't carry Hustler for me either.

 

[King of the Americas]

Hmmm... return of the zombie thread...


Yes, what a person sees on TV or hears on the radio may differ slightly from content available on CDs/DVDs.

Differ slightly? They are outrightly 'censored', there are un-natural breaks and mis-representations of speech. The view itself is "zoom-in", and doesn't even represent the creator's original view/perspective on the movie. If you were a film student, shouldn't there be somewhere you can find the original work to study, rather than the edited version?

Differ slightly? Hearing an artist's 'hit', is VERY different than getting to hear the whole album. The WHOLE album, even all of their work, through an inter-library loan.

However, similar arguments can be made for pretty much ALL material that the library may hold:
- Books (especially ones outside the 'bestseller' list may be difficult if not impossible to find at your local bookstore
- Because the content of books is copyrighted, you may not have any alternative to accessing the content EXCEPT on paper
So, we have limited resources (i.e. library funding), and we have to decide what is a more serious problem: the video viewer who simply doesn't like the fact that his movie is 'edited for TV' (giving 90% of the content they'd otherwise get), or the book reader who wouldn't have access to ANY of the material.

Actually, I already told you. I have NEVER been unable to fill a book order/request, with the aid of the inter-library loan system. Paper costs money, LOTS of it. You have to buy it, care for it, and give it a place to rest. When it gets old, you have to replace it. Data stored on or in digital form does NOT have all of these requirements. Books/'paper', take up space and cost a lot to maintain. DVD's & CD's are as thin as 10 sheets of paper and half the size of an average book. After being removed from their original case, their storage becomes super compact.

I never said "society" as a whole needs to rid themselves of digital media... I said that it is probably not necessary for libraries to provide that type of access.

"Seg, you proposed that we(libraries) rid ourselves of basically ALL of our digital media, even the internet. These are some of our most valuable resources, because they are small and contain TONS of information.

Private venders DO offer such services. So do many other non-profit and government organizations (schools, 'freenet' organizations, etc.)

No, they don't. The ONLY place you can find free internet access in small cities and towns is a local library. Schools are not open during the summer. The ONLY freenet organization I've seen was "Books-a-million", over in Sherman, an hour away.

I am a computer programmer. I've been working in the field for over 15 years. I was dealing with the 'internet' back when you could map the internet based on the interconnection of 56k lines, and I still deal with web content.

Then you 'know' how valuable/efficient digital media is..!?

Libraries of the future might be ALL digital. NO BOOKS at all, just a bunch of computer or reading screens, that featured whatever you wanted to look at. You could get a hard copy, but you'd have to pay per page.

Being familiar with technology (even wanting to promote it) doesn't necessarily mean that one should push its use in ALL areas.

We should use EVERY means possible to get as much information to 'the public' as possible, period.

I'd have to ask.. why exactly are people "requesting" the information? You seem to think all 'requests' should be given equal weight. I think that any 'requests' should be weighted, whereby requests for material that is difficult or impossible to find through alternatives (e.g. books that were traditionally carried by the library) should be given higher precidence where multiple alternatives DO exist (even if those alternatives are not optimal, its better to have an imperfect alternative than none at all.)

People make informations requests because..."they require the information".

And yes, all requests are equal. A request for a book on STD's is no or less valuable than one on scale model building. I'd hate to see the criteria list you'd recommend for rating these information requests.

Presently, libraries are the ONLY alternative for many who can't afford to buy books, cd's, movies, and newspapers or magazines. And even they are not open as often as their patrons would like.

Lastly:

"Less Public Access via Libraries = LESS ACCESS FOR POOR"

Is this acceptable to you?

 

[steverino]

WHATEVER you view/read in a Library 'should' be YOUR business, and of no concern to anyone else, period.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Hi King. We had this debate on a similar thread a year or two ago. I was at my local library and observed a male teen, say 14, viewing hardcore porn. There were no dividers and the bank of computers where he sat was in the middle of the room. Little kids, like 5 year olds, were walking by. You too the "It's nobody else's business" stance."

My point was, and still is, that when others, especially kids, can see another person's library computer screen in a high foot-traffic place, the porn-viewer is making it other peoples' business. My neighbors can make love outside on their lawn all they want, but I would want them to have a fence or wall on their property for privacy...and to keep the groaning to a minimum.

 

[King of the Americas]

The fact that its 'low cost' doesn't necessarily mean that the cost to the library is zero. Thus, they have to make decsions on how to allocate resources: Spend the money on a computer and internet connection (replicating the services that a person can get from their local internet cafe, or available free through a community freenet), or spend the money on actual paper books, which may not be as good a 'bargin', but which may be more difficult for many people to access otherwise.

We operated 6 terminals, for $100 a month. The computers were a grant from the Gates foundation, and we paid a guy about $50 every 6 months to debug the system.

For less than the price 54 books, we can give up to 48 people access to the world for one full hour each day, several hundred days a year.

CBA- Internet = Good Expenditure

 

[King of the Americas]

Hi King. We had this debate on a similar thread a year or two ago. I was at my local library and observed a male teen, say 14, viewing hardcore porn. There were no dividers and the bank of computers where he sat was in the middle of the room. Little kids, like 5 year olds, were walking by. You too the "It's nobody else's business" stance."

My point was, and still is, that when others, especially kids, can see another person's library computer screen in a high foot-traffic place, the porn-viewer is making it other peoples' business. My neighbors can make love outside on their lawn all they want, but I would want them to have a fence or wall on their property for privacy...and to keep the groaning to a minimum.

The answer is "privacy screens", and warning signs located around the internet area.

"THIS AREA MAY CONTAIN OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL"

The privacy screens are $100 each...

 

[King of the Americas]

Except for the fact that then your machines will be buggy as all heck. A filter respects the community mores of what should be publically available at a library.

Not always in line with free speech at all.

My library doesn't carry Hustler for me either.

Make an official request...if they refuse to fill that "written request" in a timely manner, you've got a suit on you hands.