Untitled

[xhewetso]

9134 had me thinking about this scene. Hope you enjoy it.

[amylis9134]

...have you tried turning it off and on again?

[xhewetso]

Just realized that this did not publish on tumblr. I am still fumbling my way around it and as of yet I have not figured out how to successfully publish original content here. If this works then it is just a brief look at an article by Newitz on RFID hacking from 2006. Things have changed from...

[amylis9134]

It also amuses me (probably not the right word, it actually annoys me), that the things we are being tracked with via RFIDs, are things we don't actually own, but we still need to function.  Our student cards for example..we are forced to carry them because we need them to access ANYTHING, yet we don't actually get to claim ownership, yet they are used to track what we do, our whereabouts, when we do stuff, when we go places...I just feel like if it tracks so much of my life I should at least get to claim ownership, which might sound silly but my brain is fried

[alicia9134]

Copyright is such a large issue, and has been covered in so many ways, that it has actually been a challenge for me when it comes to narrowing it down to one single element in order to focus on a discussion. With my presentation last week, I focused on the idea of the use of copyright and the...

[amylis9134]

I also always think of the Swartz story when copyright is mentioned.  I wrote about Swartz for one of our 9001 papers...I can't remember what the topic was exactly.  Oh!  I think it was licensing.  It totally was.  Swartz was violating license agreements (obviously), but these licensing agreements between educational institutions and third parties that provide journals, etc. are often flawed, limiting, and lacking transparency.

[msjeremyah]

As the screen grab above tells you, I’ve used up my name changing freebies on Facebook.

Did you know we had a limited number of name changes? I certainly didn’t.

Originally, I had my full name on Facebook, but because of its conspicuous nature I  decided to change it to the phonetic Ukrainian spelling. Alas, I cannot spell so I had to change my name again. That’s it, three name changes. 

Does anyone else think this odd? Perhaps a little bit of an invasion of privacy? In my personal opinion, it’s none of Facebook’s business what I want to go by on Facebook versus the outside world.

My married name (as of next spring) will just have to be an alternate name because nothing out there will convince me to give Facebook a copy of my ID.

@ LISers: We talk about the evils of Facebook all the time. Can we just invent a new website, please? All I want is a social media site that won’t sell my information, won’t invade my privacy, and doesn’t put my name in search engines. Come on, that can’t be hard! 9723 project next semester maybe? We can get the whole of FIMS together, I guarantee there’s enough FB hate their to fuel it.

[alicia9134]

Wow, I’m just seeing this now. What would happen if someone was to get married and then divorced, like, 5 times (I hope this never happens to anyone - way too much effort, and kind of a pain I’d imagine). If they changed their last name with EACH marriage, after the third would they be forever stuck with their ex-spouses last name on Facebook forEVER?! Yikes!!

[amylis9134]

I've disabled then created new accounts because of this rule.  Also, why does FB keep asking me for my phone number?  They say it's to secure my account, but I somehow doubt that!

[amylis9134]

Privacy, Surveillance, and Marx

Certain feelings are often associated with certain words.  In general, I have negative feelings towards the word “surveillance.”  Maybe it is because I am naturally a very private person.  Maybe it is because of the novels I read (1984), that influence my thinking towards the term surveillance, and what the term encompasses.  However, Gary Marx’s article on privacy and surveillance (Surveillance and Technology: Contexts and Distinctions) has forced me to think differently about the term.  Right away, he points out the common error of thinking of surveillance as the opposite of privacy.  This is how I have always seen surveillance.  He correctly states, however, that the two are not mutually exclusive.  They do not have to be seen as at odds with each other.  In fact, the two concepts can work together.

Marx suggests that surveillance can be used to protect privacy.  He states, “surveillance can serve goals of protection, administration, rule compliance, documentation, and strategy, as well as goals involving inappropriate manipulation, restricted life opportunities, social control, and spying (page 47).

There definitely can be a dark side to surveillance.  “New surveillance,” according to Marx, involves the use of technology such as video cameras, brain scans, and location monitoring (49).  Using advanced technology can often result in surveillance occurring without voluntary participation on those being observed, which definitely raises ethical issues.  It can often be disguised, but at the same time voluntary.  While you may sign your information away to get a Shoppers Optimum Card for the purposes of gaining benefits, you may not know that your purchases are carefully tracked and advertisements are specifically tailored to you.  Some may love this, some may thing it is uber-creepy.  This fact is not hidden, but it definitely isn’t explained to you while you sign up at the register.

But on the bright side!  There are times in life when you value your privacy more than normal.  For me (and for many others, I suspect), one of these times is in medical situations.  As witness to a hideous patient confidentiality mishap in a doctor’s office, I have seen the damage done when privacy of medical information is not respected.  But that’s where the positive nature of surveillance can shine through to protect privacy.  Legislation such as the Personal Health Information Protection Act (2004) acts as a surveillance tool to ensure privacy violations in the medical field do not happen, and that there are repercussions if they do.  It is a perfect example of how surveillance can help keep your life private, when it is often assumed that surveillance directly threatens your privacy.

[amylis9134]

Librarians as Gatekeepers?

“There is a difference between information and knowledge… entertainment is merely the consumption of information for the purpose of obtaining pleasure, not knowledge.”  This is what Ed D’Angelo has to say about one aspect of postmodern consumerism and how it impacts the public library: the explosion of popular culture, entertainment, and images onto the scene of the library.  This explosion is indicative of the shifting library sphere, and according to D’Angelo, threatening to the traditional role of the public librarian.  Popular culture is replacing “high culture” in libraries.  This means that the role of the librarian as an educator and gate-keeper to knowledge is being replaced with a role of the librarian as a selector of items that will be most popular with its patrons.  D’Angelo sums up this shift: “don’t try to educate them…give ‘em what they want,” (D’Angelo is not a fan of this notion, by the way).

I think it is very fair to be weary of the shift away from the library as a public educational system to a consumerist bookstore model where collections are solely based on high demand items with high projected sales figures.  These types of practices can lead to a slippery slope that already has people debating whether or not to replace the Dewey Decimal System as the main organizational method in libraries with the Book Industry Standards and Communications, which is the organizational standard adopted in bookstores.  Two articles I have come across arguing for this replacement are One Size Does Not Fit All, by Kaplan, Giffard, Still-Schiff, and Dolloff, and Dewey vs. Genre Throwdown by Holli Buchter.  These articles raise some interesting points in favour of BISAC, such as the organization of books by genre being more conducive to browsing habits.  However, switching to BISAC would bring the public model of libraries to one that considers profit over any other values (easy browsing does often equate to increased sales).

So I definitely see D’Angelo’s fear of entertainment and consumerist models overtaking the educational role libraries provide.  However, what I do not agree with is the idea that entertainment and education have to be completely independent of each other.  While a patron may read a book for entertainment purposes, there is a great possibility that he or she may learn something valuable while being entertained at the same time.  So is the consumerist and entertainment focus that libraries are being pressured to embrace concerning?  Definitely, if it means sacrificing core library values to fit into a private business role.  But maybe this struggle between staying true to values and succumbing to market pressures can open new opportunities to unite education and knowledge with entertainment and leisure.

[amylis9134]

Social Exclusion and Libraries

I love libraries.  Not a big surprise, coming from a library student.  I find myself and all of my fellow MLIS-ers not only have a love of libraries, but also an innate desire to defend libraries in every situation where danger to our beloved institution lurks.  On the first day of classes I remember being asked to write down professional values regarding librarianship.  Mostly everyone in the class agreed libraries need to uphold values such as equitable access to information and services for EVERYONE.  This seemed to be a given.  Of course libraries and librarians value equitable access!

But alas, in progressing through the program, having to think critically reared its head and I was exposed to the truth.  Libraries are not perfect utopias.  Funds are limited.  We can’t provide everything.  Libraries are existing in a time when funding is limited, demands are high, and their relevance is questioned daily.  In his article, Social Exclusion and the Public Library, Matthew Williamson brings up the idyllic view of libraries so many of us possess.  He states, a public library is, “a solvent for squalor, as a spiritual haven for the alienated and as an instrument of fellowship and egalitarianism” (178).  Libraries can be a place of equity for socially excluded groups because they can provide vital services that no other institution can.

This is why it is so important that we continue to hold onto the values as librarians in the progressively challenging future.  Williamson points out that the recreational and cultural roles libraries serve will take a back seat to the educational and informational roles as libraries continue to face growing economic and ideological pressures.  As the prevalence of business models increase, so will the expectations of libraries proving their importance through achieving “ends.”  Unfortunately, the recreational and cultural role the public library can provide to socially excluded groups are not quantifiable, and when it comes to proving worth, the ones in charge like to see numbers.

Trust me, I would love to continue living in my idyllic world where libraries are the utopia, safe haven and champion of all things information related.  Library school has put ideas into my head that I would like to ignore, ones that threaten my perfect view of libraries.  I knew libraries were facing transitional and challenging times, but never did I question how these times would directly challenge my core goal of connecting people (especially social excluded groups) to the information they need.  I do not have the solutions, but I am asking the questions, which is a far advancement from where my thoughts stood four months ago.

[amylis9134]

Efficiency and Technology in Libraries

When I tell people I am going to school to become a librarian, the main response (apart from the all too common and dreaded “you need a master’s to do that???”) usually has to do with technology.  Many people I talk to simply comment that technological advancements are changing the field of librarianship in a broad scope.  Others question me on the relevance of libraries in such a technologically advanced time (do people even check out books anymore?  We do, after all, have the internet!!!).

There is no denying that technology is having a huge impact on libraries.  New issues enter the field as a direct consequence of advancements in technology.  Instead of focusing on teaching us technological skills, the MLIS program at UWO directs the focus more towards how technology will shape librarianship as an external force.   

So what does my rambling about technology have to do with this week’s discussion on efficiency in libraries?  When I talk to people about how technology is currently impacting librarianship, I often get the impression that technology is seen as a new force that has only started shifting the tides of librarianship in recent years, mostly due to the explosion of the internet onto the scene.  The readings and presentations (which were awesome, by the way) this week have shown to me that this is in fact not the case.  Although most of the discussion was on efficiency, Marion Casey points out in Efficiency, Taylorism, and Libraries In Progressive America, that Dewey and McCarthy wanted to, “bring order out of a society torn by technology,” with their efforts aimed at increasing efficiency in libraries (275).  Technology can not therefore be seen as a recent force, but one that has been impacting libraries for years, and one that influenced the creation of Dewey’s widely implemented organization scheme.

Concentrating specifically on efficiency now, I turn my thoughts to the terrifying notion of libraries being run according to private business models.  I have heard several arguments in support of running libraries in the same manner as bookstores.  Why?  In the name of efficiency.  One common argument in support of this idea is employing bookstore staff in libraries to do reference work and circulation.  They cost less that library employees, and can do the same job, right?  Wrong.  This argument ignores the fact that library staff receive specific education in library roles aimed at meeting the information needs of a variety of patrons (notice I said patrons, not customers).  But using staff being paid minimum wage to complete a multitude of tasks is so efficient!  Think of the savings, but monetary and by the clock.

But think of the cost.  Efficiency is great, but what are you willing to give up to achieve it?  Personalized information service?  Equitable access to resources?  Dedicated library staff?  Any MLIS student thinking of working in a library is going to have to develop an answer to this question to guide his or her personal information philosophy in the workplace.