Snowed In @bibliophile24-7 - Tumblr Blog

Internet Censorship

A survey conducted in 2012 by the Internet Society reported that 71% of respondents felt: "censorship should exist in some form on the Internet." But in the same survey 83% agreed that "access to the Internet should be considered a basic human right" and 86% felt that "freedom of expression should be guaranteed on the Internet" (Internet Society, 2012). In other words, people don’t know what they want. Either that or they don’t understand what ‘freedom of expression’ means.

Government attempt to censor access are difficult, expensive, and largely ineffective, simply due to the way that the Internet functions: it was never designed for censorship. Many censorship efforts have simply been thwarted by changes in technology: “peer-to-peer (P2P) systems such as BitTorrent and eDonkey are now estimated to carry up to 60% of data on large Internet networks” (CacheLogic cited in Brown, 2008) and “these systems avoid reliance on single machines that can be shut down or blocked” (Brown, 2008).

While the truth is that Internet censorship doesn’t work, I can’t say I completely understand why it exists at all. Are citizens children? Do they need the government regulating what may or may not upset them? Or does ‘freedom of expression’ only apply to the contexts that you (or your government) agrees with?

Even countries with what Brown terms “stronger constitutional commitments to freedom of expression” have embraced Internet filtering. In other countries, state censorship tends to target “pornography […] news, human rights, dissident websites” (Brown, 2008). But if these activities are against the law, shouldn’t the enforcers of those laws be focusing their efforts on ending the activities, rather than making sure that no one else knows what’s going on? The idea is keep other citizens in the dark, to keep them protected. So that they can’t be disturbed? So they can’t be inspired? But since the technology isn’t working anyway, wouldn’t it make more sense to channel government resources and efforts into finding the original publishers and/or authors of the material you wanted to censor in the first place?

And how are the limits of what is censored and what is allowed defined? Who makes these decisions? The power of social media is a frequent topic of discussion, and one that (as far as I know) is less connected the censorship than the idea of mainstream media. Will social media be censored if (or when) people start disagreeing with the government?

In theory, censorship is dangerous and damaging. In practice, as Brown’s article shows, it’s rather impotent. This post is full of questions rather than facts, but I feel genuinely bewildered by so many aspects of this conversation. What I do know for certain is that all the while we are uncensored, we must take advantage of our ability to question, to probe, and to speak and write freely.

References

"Global Internet User Survey 2012", Internet Society, 20 November 2012

Brown, Ian. “Internet Censorship: Be Careful What You Ask for.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Communication, Mass Media and Culture Istanbul, October 2006.

#lis9134

The RFID Underground

The RFID Hacking Underground

http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/rfid.html

The article above, by Annalee Newitz, analyses the increased use by corporations, and potentially public offices, to use RFID sensor chips for everyday exchanges of currency and information. Westhues argues that that the RFID (Radio Frequency Identification)—first used to track merchandise and government resources—is vulnerable to hacking by anyone; from a well-meaning computer science graduate students to malevolent underground criminal organizations, our information is increasingly at the mercy of computer code.

Newitz does concede, when after she raises the issue of the use of RCIF in passports, “the chips that will go into US passports, for example, will likely be coded to make it difficult for unauthorized readers to retrieve their onboard information” (3). She also cites a research manager at a high-tech security firm who says “the world of RFID is like the Internet in its early stages” (3) and relates another anecdote of a case where three graduate students ripped off a gas station: “using a laptop and a simple RFID broadcasting device, they tricked the system into letting them fill up for free” (4).

She concludes by refuting a director of communications at VeriChip, another security firm. While the director says that the risk of implementing RFIDs can be leveled if companies make sure to check “paper IDs” as well, Newitz questions the effectiveness of such a strategy: “isn’t the point of an implantable chip that authentication is automatic?” (6).

While Newitz’s arguments are valid—there seems to be a clear need for action in regards to privacy issues and who owns our personal information—her article can also be read as perhaps unduly pessimistic. Thieves have been around since biblical times; for every theft, there will someone who creates anti-theft software to combat hacking. There certainly seems to be a need for privacy protection, but increases in technology and greater user accessibility are hardly causes for major concern. For every time something (or someone) is hacked, someone else is going to be helped.

But it’s equally true that use of RFID technology has terrifying implications. Westhues uses his simple, homemade USB device to ‘break in’ to Van Bokkelen’s office as a harmless prank. But how long until this someone with malicious intent is able to open office doors? How long till all of our information is contained on a tiny chip in our hand? And, as we touched on in class, how long until some desperate person with a machete comes along and takes that chip out of hand, effectively gaining control over your office, your bank account, and your identity? You can sneer all she likes at the inefficacy of checking paper identification; I’m siding with the paranoid undertones on this one.

#lis9134

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

bibliophile24-7

Amy - completely agree. It's ridiculous that a card that is 'loan' should have such huge ramifications in terms of tracking our activities and our whereabouts. The idea that we don't actually own the card has a bunch of weird implications. Like say I want to wrap my student card in tin foil so my every move around campus CAN'T be tracked? Do I not have the authority to do so anymore? What can/can't I do? What permissions am I no longer entitled to?

Does the same go for Visa cards? Does anyone know if we actually 'own' them or not?

vintagelibraries

Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County, Film Room, year unknow.

"The Library was one of the first in the nation to circulate 16 mm films. To keep the films in good shape, special inspection machines operated by staff in white gloves were required to hunt for bad splices or breaks after every loan."

- John Fleischman, Free & Public: One Hundred and Fifty Years at the Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County

cutterandmutter

Aw, looking at this gorgeous fire hazard makes me miss the movie theatre that I used to work at.

bibliophile24-7

^^ Completely agree. The movie theatre job I had in high school remains the best one I've ever had

Google and Privacy

In The Googlization of Everything, Siva Vaidhyanathan urges us to educate ourselves. He notes that “there is simply no consistency, reciprocity, or accountability in the system. We must monitor fast-changing ‘privacy-policies’” (Vaidhyanathan 84). When’s the last time your read a privacy policy? Never? Google’s aware. They have a series of videos to help compensate for consumer’s lack of own concern. After Google’s recent acquisitions of Youtube, the company released this oh-so-helpful video to talk about the affect on their privacy policy, or, rather, what Siva Vaidhyanathan calls a “lack-of-privacy policy” (Vaidhyanathan 84).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGghlPmebCY

This video, meant to educate consumers, refers to the company keeping my “private stuff” private, without ever providing a definition for “private stuff.” This video terrifies me. I don’t even know where to start – maybe with the girl’s chipper, robotic voice? And no matter how hard they are trying to be quirky and cute, even the drawings are scary. Is this how Google see its consumers? As big lumps with tiny heads – and matching tiny brains? This video – their entire series of videos, in fact, leaves me feeling incredibly patronized. Maybe it’s the subtitles on the bottom on the screen. Maybe it’s the fact that they refer to the laws that protect our interests as ‘legal gloop.’

In the above video, the lady assures us that this new policy will lead to “better search results and ads.” Making this connection simply drive home the fact that Google is using this new privacy policy to better monitor our interests and information. What if I don’t want Google to know my location, my schedule, and my local traffic conditions? There doesn’t seem to be any way to opt out. When it comes to our information and our information privacy, Siva Vaidhyanathan notes that “Google retains the right to make significant decisions about our data without significant regard for our interest” (85). Regardless of how many cutesy videos they company releases, I still don’t believe that my information is safe or private.

The recent merger of Google and Youtube was only a few months ago. For a long time, I did my best to keep my Youtube identity private: I didn’t create an account, and once I finally did, I kept myself signed out unless I absolutely needed to. After the merge with Google, every time I used Youtube I was harassed to use my real name, or my e-mail, or, if not, to provide the company with an explanation as to why I didn’t want to. Eventually, they stopped asking. Now, whenever I use the site, I am signed in with my full name, my primary e-mail address displayed.

Siva Vaidhyanathan urges us to stay strong, noting “We must be willing to walk away from a valuable service if its practices cause us concern” (Vaidhyanathan 84). But what service replaces Youtube? I’ve been using Gmail for so long, the idea of transferring to another e-mail provider seems exhausting and useless. Even after educating myself, the inconvenience of giving up my favourite (free) services seems far more daunting than any invisible threat to my privacy. Articulating this laziness makes me worry that maybe Google’s depiction of clumsy, tiny headed consumers isn’t so far off after all.

References

Vaidhyanathan, S. (2011). The Googlization of everything: (and why we should worry). Berkeley: University of California Press.

#lis9134

unstuffyourlibrary

In honor of the week! Should I give these out?

https://abdopub.s3.amazonaws.com/LiteraryNotionsValentines.pdf

Makerspaces in the Public Library

The Edmonton Public Library is incredibly inspiring. Their makerspace is beautiful, innovative, and (by all appearances) functional.

But Linda Cooks’ remarks (in the video above, at 1:36) about the decline of circulation are naturally a source of some anxiety. What is happening to the traditional library? What does the future hold?

It’s hard to ignore: the information landscape is changing, and libraries along with it. Library users are “increasingly viewed as customers in a marketplace” (D’Angelo, 1). Give the people what they want! Or they might go elsewhere! It’s a mentality that has been passed down from the shopping malls, from Chapters-Indigo, from Amazon. But it’s also one that is increasingly prevalent. People readily identify themselves as consumers. Consumers are motivated by excitement. Services like coffee shops and pop-ups are exciting. Espresso book machines are exciting. It’s a hard trend to fight.

Tod Colgrove's article, "Editorial Board Thoughts: Libraries as Makerspace" (published in Information Technology and Libraries in March 2013) was incredibly encouraging. Colgrove presents the idea of a makerspace as a way to revitalize the library as a center of learning, as a way to build “users’ literacies across multiple domains and [function as] a gateway to deeper engagement” (Colgrove, 2).

Our last class ended with a heated debated about gendered spaces in the library. The contention that makerspaces tend to be predominantly male (and whether or not that would discourage other patrons from using the space) is one that deserves consideration. While it's wonderful that some have never experienced discomfort based on their gender, I think it is naïve to consider that gendered spaces are no longer an issue. I also think it is fatalistic to think that there is nothing we can do to change that. As was also mentioned during our class discussion, women and children have used the library space for years for crafts and games. Why not extend these kinds of resources to include the entire library? Change is coming, and we have to be prepared to meet it and make changes of our own.

As the business model that libraries subscribe to changes, that as budgets are re-written, the way the library operates will change. Change is inevitable. And as it comes we have to be aware of changing trends in the library. Awareness doesn’t mean stagnation. It doesn't mean becoming irrelevant. It means keeping our eyes open and making sure that libraries, as a public institution, continue to meet our mandate, whatever that may be. For a public library, this typically means a commitment to free and open access for all. Changes mean we must constantly be prepared to create new policies and decide on the new customs of the new library. I don’t see an expiration date on the concept of the public library. It’s important to remember, “technology merely gives management the tools to carry out its policies” (D’Angelo, 1). How can we continue to meet the mandate of public service that has already been set? Catering to digital literacy and having access to the kind resources that makerspaces can provide is certainly one way. The EDL is a great example of a library that is forging ahead, working hard to meet its mandate in a changing landscape. Anyone in their brave footsteps should proceed, but take care to do so with caution, with their eyes open. Libraries have the power to make a real impact on people’s lives.

References

Colgrove, Ted. "Editorial Board Thoughts: Libraries as Makerspace?" Information Technology and Library. (2013): 2-5. Web. 7 Feb. 2014.

D'Angelo, Ed. Barbarians at the Gates of the Public Library: How Postmodern Consumer Capitalism Threatens Democracy, Civil Education and the Public Good. 1. Sacremento, CA: Library Juice Press, 2006. Print.