Why Archivists Go To Library School � Hack Library School

I was particular struck by the following passage of Stephanie Bennett's recent post, Why Archivists Go To Library School, on the Hack Library School blog:

Archivists, in some ways, are fighting a battle even more uphill than librarians. A bold statement, but hear me out. Everyone – well, nearly everyone – has been into a library at some point in their life. Schools of all kinds and for all ages, corporations, not-for-profits, even prisons have libraries. But who goes to the archives? Who even know what to go to the archives for? We archivists appeal to a more niche population. I spend a lot of time trying to explain what archives are and, most importantly, what they can do for “normal people,” because I don’t know how to duck those questions.

I wonder if anyone working in the field would disagree with this characterization?

Read More

#2 and #3 in a Religiously Pessimistic Trilogy

GRAPHIC SOURCE: http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2011/06/02/bus-company-baloney

The two topics I'm highlighting in this blog post are a follow up to #1 in a Religiously Pessimistic Trilogy, where I reveal my point of view as a person who feels no connection to dogmatic religions and identifies as agnostic or irreligious, though I dislike such labels.

I apologize for the length of this post. Ideally I would have posted this as two separate blog entries, but given the fact that this is the last week of class, I'm taking advantage of having a little built-in audience to "listen" to me ramble on for a bit.

---

#2

Squelching the free speech rights of atheists isn't legal even though it may be socially acceptable because the irreligious are hell-bound anyhow

(AKA Arkansas bus company being sued by atheist group for First Amendment discrimination)

• Arkansas Atheists Sue Over Controversial Bus Ads - Suzi Parker, HuffingtonPost.com - 6/10/11
• Atheist Group Sues Arkansas Bus Company for Discrimination - Jeremy Byellin, WestlawInsider - 6/7/11
• Bus company baloney - Max Brantley, ArkTimes.com/Arkansas Blog - 6/2/11

I remember as a 14-year-old girl traveling to Florida for a summer family vacation seeing my first Christian billboard somewhere in Alabama. Having grown up in a loosely agnostic-ish household with irregular church attendance throughout my entire life, I was so moved in a negative way by the message behind the words (something to the effect that Jesus saves, and if you don't get on board, you are going to rot in hell). As someone that might be the intended audience (unless the group that paid for the advertisement was only looking to "preach to the choir"), I was certainly not inspired to attend church or seek salvation. This heavy-handed approach turned me off.

Since then, I've seen lots of billboards, bus advertisements, and the like that have been promoted by Christian groups.

The first story I'm touching on this week relates to the Central Arkansas Transit Authority (bus line) that has advertised Christian messages in the past but has recently chosen to deny the Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason's request to utilize the buses for a public awareness campaign that asserts "people can be good without believing in a god," a message aimed at "Atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, humanists, skeptics, non-religious, lost tourists, and the confused..."

The proposed bus ads (which would cost $5000) would read, "Are you good without God? Millions Are."

The Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason alleges in a recent lawsuit against the bus company that it was advised by the Central Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) that its advertising firm, On The Move Advertising, requested the Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason to pay a fee amounting to $36,000 in insurance just in case some angry Christians decide to vandalize the the buses featuring this ad (which apparently did occur with similar bus ads in other states).

This additional fee has not been required of any other group, including churches.

The Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason's complaint in this lawsuit alleges that CATA refused to lease advertising space to the Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason "on the same terms available to other advertisers in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Interestingly, Jeremy Byellin's Westlaw Insider article points out that the CATA "may have been able to make these steps appear reasonable had it not been for a series of email communications that demonstrate content-based opposition to the ads, rather than from public backlash."



Dangerous Questions?
What would you think if you saw a bus with an ad like, "Are you good without God? Millions Are"?

---

#3

My boyfriend's really cruddy day at work

(AKA the First Amendment also protects agnostics' and atheists' right to not endure workplace religious expression without being punished for holding an unpopular view)

• Religious Discrimination: The Devout, Atheists & Agnostics All Have Rights - Loring N. Spolter, Broward County Bar Association - 11/03/09
• SECTION 12: RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION - EEOC Compliance Manual - 7/22/08
• Religious liberty in public life: Workplace religious liberty - David L. Hudson, Jr., First Amendment Center - 9/16/02

Did you know?

• A 2004 Mother Jones survey found that 52% of Americans claim they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist as president
• A 2007 Gallup poll found that 53% of respondents claim they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist as president
• A 2006 University of Minnesota study showed atheists to be the most distrusted minority among Americans
  

Regarding the University of Minnesota study:

...sociologists Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerties and Douglas Hartmann conducted a survey of American public opinion on attitudes towards different groups. 40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that "does not at all agree with my vision of American society", putting atheists well ahead of every other group, with the next highest being Muslims (26%) and homosexuals (23%). When participants were asked whether they agreed with the statement, "I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group," atheists again led minorities, with 48% disapproval, followed by Muslims (34%) and African-Americans (27%).... Joe Foley, co-chairman for Campus Atheists and Secular Humanists, commented on the results, "I know atheists aren't studied that much as a sociological group, but I guess atheists are one of the last groups remaining that it's still socially acceptable to hate."...Nevertheless, atheists are legally protected from discrimination in the United States."

-- Wikipedia, "Freedom of religion in the United States: Situation of Atheists", my emphasis

I support everyone's right to religious expression--including the non-believers' rights to their own expression of beliefs without having to fear social ostracism by neighbors, friends, co-workers, employers, etc., who equate non-believers as being immoral and unethical, and worthy only as objects of potential-conversion, pity, ridicule, or scorn--especially coming from individuals who are more fundamentalist, evangelical, or newly saved.

I understand the issue of those who wish to integrate their religious beliefs within the context of the workplace, without fear of discrimination. As summarized on Findlaw.com, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

... prohibits private employers from discriminating on several bases, including race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Various state laws also prevent discrimination. The courts have recognized various forms of prohibited discrimination, including disparate treatment, disparate impact, and a hostile environment.

A private employer has a duty to accommodate religious beliefs of employees, if the accommodations are reasonable and not too burdensome on the employer. Some employers continue to make mistakes when it comes to appropriately accommodating employees' right to religious expression. Some employers choose to allow employees to hold group prayer, bible study groups, display religious icons, etc.

Some employers directly promote religious expression, such as broadcasting prayer over the intercom or having supervisors or bosses directly lead prayer/bible study groups.

For employees that are irreligious, sometimes religious expression of co-workers can become troublesome when it crosses a line from merely making you uncomfortable to hurting or impacting you in a negative way. Of course, different people have different thresholds on this "line" that can be crossed.

For some irreligious people, issues can arise from simple exchanges like having an openly- Christian co-worker ask you what church you go to. One could reasonably interpret that this co-worker is trying to size you up somehow by finding out about your religious beliefs. If you tell the co-worker that you don't go to church and that you identify as agnostic or atheist, you risk being negatively judged, negatively treated, and having to endure future proselytization efforts by your co-worker. While your co-worker simply be making small talk, there is a subtle presumption being communicated that the expectation is that you are a fellow-Christian.

If a co-worker or supervisor insists on pressing the issue once you declare your discomfort, you have the right to formally complain to your employer, at which point the employer becomes vulnerable to a Title VII/First Amendment lawsuit if the employer fails to stand up for your right to "irreligious expression".

My "agnostic" boyfriend, Chris' co-worker, "Paul", who would catch rides with Chris to the bus-stop after work and during which he repeatedly talked about his conversion and God's mission for him. Chris would simply not reply or reply in a non-committal fashion if "Paul" seemed to be asking for a response, but he felt very uncomfortable and sometimes agitated by some of "Paul's" comments, such as when he told Chris that he could not wait to get his own car so that he could give rides home to people and preach the Lord's word to them. After weeks of these kinds of "discussions", Chris finally told his co-worker that he did not want to talk about religion with him, after which time the discussions pretty much ceased.

About a month ago, Chris had a very different experience at work when his employer held a presumably required meeting where a guest organization was presenting a "thank you" plaque to Chris' employer for his employer having donated money to them.

One presenter for the guest organization spoke about how the contribution positively affected her life, invoking a religious tone for several minutes and eliciting affirmative responses from some of the attending employees ("amen", etc.). I don't know whether the employer expected this type of presentation style, but the result for Chris was that he become very uncomfortable about the overall energy the room took on for a while. As this was the "tip of the iceberg" on an already bad day, he ended up going asking to go home early that day for unspecified reasons.

If this kind of meeting (or a similar scenario) should happen again, he and I looked into his options, and we felt like talking to one of his direct supervisors about his discomfort and asking to be excused from the meeting without question (a simple accommodation) was the best option we could come up with. He documented a few notes about the occurrence, including about having spoken to a supervisor and a human resources representative about this discomfort (who incidentally granted him the freedom to express his discomfort by quietly and discreetly leaving a meeting and returning to work).

If he feels he is discriminated against by his employer in the future, now that his religious stance has been communicated to and documented by his employer, he has documentation for a potential lawsuit under Title VII and the First Amendment. Chris does not intend to pursue any such lawsuit, but at least he knows he has the right to expect that he will not be discriminated against for his own "irreligious expression," and that his employer has been "put on notice" of its responsibility for protecting his rights.




Dangerous Questions?
If you are "believer," have you ever considered that there may be a certain line that could be crossed in the context of the workplace when it comes to talking about religion to someone that has expressed a discomfort about the subject?

Have you ever considered the rights of people to express religious non-belief without fear of being discriminated against/being treated in a way that negatively affects them?

If you are more inclined toward identifying as irreligious, have you ever felt uncomfortable or discriminated against (in the workplace or otherwise)? How so?

Read More

#1 in Religiously Pessimistic Trilogy

Image Source: http://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134194491/high-court-rules-for-military-funeral-protesters

The three topics I'll touch on over my next two blog postings were chosen by me as a person who has always had trouble feeling connected to dogmatic religions or even to really commit to any particular spiritual beliefs. Most days I am somewhere around +1 to -57 on a Pure atheism / Pure theism continuum (although I don't really feel comfortable with such labels).

IMAGE SOURCE: http://thebentangle.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/an-atheist%E2%80%99s-reponse-to-ron-rosenbaum%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cagnostic-manifesto-%E2%80%9D/

I think about my mortality (and that of my loved ones) every single day, and I understand how some people have a sincere need to feel confident about their post-earth destinies, while I don't share this compulsion. I don't necessarily think that "believers" are wrong, I just know that this lifestyle choice is not right for me. If I'm wrong, I don't think fear of an eternity in hell is a good enough reason for me to "fake it" since that is what I'd have do.

My point is that I'm pessimistic when it comes to things that people do and say in the name of religion.

An Observation

Something I've found particularly interesting when comparing my undergrad years at a Lutheran private university (Valparaiso University), which I attended from 1994-1997 compared to attending classes though a state institution (IU SLIS program) from 2006 to the present is that VU, I don't recall my fellow students volunteering their religious views during routine class introductions and discussions. During my online classes with IU SLIS, I don't recall a single class that did not have at least a couple fellow students include their religious views in their introductions. I don't know if this has more to do with the times we live in now versus a decade ago, or if it has to do with classes being presented in person versus in writing via forums where you have more time to consider what you'd like to convey about yourself.

Anyhow... in choosing the topic below (and my next two topics that I'll flesh out in my next blog posting), I thought I'd take a moment and declare my own personal non-relationship with formal religion.

---

#1

Religious radicals have the right to speech speech that causes emotional distress to families burying dead soldiers when it constitutes matters of public concern

(AKA States' potentially unconstitutional buffer zone laws taking the edge off of Westboro Baptist Church's First Amendment rights that were affirmed in Supreme Court's recent decision of Snyder v. Phelps)

• States Responding to Snyder v. Phelps with Laws to Restrict Military Funeral Protests - First Amendment Law Prof Blog - 6/5/11

• States Look to Guarantee Civility at Military Funerals - Tracy Loew, abcNEWS/USA TODAY - 6/4/11

• Snyder v. Phelps: The Swami Breaks It Down - Kevin Goldberg, CommonLawBlog - 4/13/11

• Snyder v. Phelps: First Amendment Protects Westboro Baptist Funeral Protest, Precludes Tort Liability - First Amendment Law Prof Blog - 3/3/11

• A Peek Inside The Westboro Baptist Church - Barbara Bradley Hagerty, NPR - 3/2/11

I remember hearing about Rev. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church's common practice of traveling around the country and protesting at military funerals with the message that God is punishing the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality--in particular within the military. Phelps and WBC have been doing this for years, displaying signs with messages like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Fags Doom Nations," "God Hates Fags," and "America Is Doomed." These military protests, as well as numerous other dubious activities Phelps and the WBC have undertaken over the years, have less to do with the person being buried's sexuality, but more to do with the group's wanting to gain exposure and attention for their extremist beliefs. One of the more telling quotes I found about their motivations comes from Barbara Bradley Hagerty's NPR piece noted above:

...members have protested at the funerals of public figures such as Elizabeth Edwards, children killed in bus accidents and soldiers killed in war. Shirley Phelps-Roper, the church spokeswoman, says the members want God to punish Americans for tolerating homosexuality. They picket funerals to make people angry, she says: They want people to reject God and be condemned to hell.

In the March 2011 Supreme Court decision related to one family (the Snyder's) who sued for emotional distress over the WBC's protest at Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder's funeral in Westminster, MD (Snyder was killed while serving in Iraq), the Court affirmed the First Amendment rights of WBC to speak out about matters of pubic concern (even when done in an "inarticulate, offensive, and hateful" manner). Naturally, this decision has outraged a good majority of people who are aware of this case, which has prompted at least 26 states to "consider ways to shield military funerals from outside groups by creating or expanding buffer zones around military funerals."

While the Snyder v. Phelps decision did apparently hint that such buffer zones would be constitutional, I find it interesting that Steven Shiffrin (First Amendment expert and law professor at Cornell University) raises two points that might indicate that buffer zones would not hold up to constitutional scrutiny; that is, such laws would also prohibit speech/signs praising and supporting the deceased or the family's courage and, in general, the laws are directed only at military funerals rather than all funerals.

Andrea Meyer (Director of American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon) puts it this way:

When you draft legislation targeting the particular speech of a particular party because you find that speech abhorrent, you run into real risks under the federal and state constitutions...

Dangerous Questions?

As a future library/information professional, where do you find yourself drawn to?

Do you feel more sympathetic to those who are attending a funeral for a loved one, who are already emotionally beaten down by dealing with the death of their loved one, and who then have to deal with a circus of protesters with hurtful, hateful things to say? What if your child was the one being buried?

Do you feel better about living in a country where your own First Amendment rights are re-affirmed by the Court's decision in Snyder v. Phelps?

Do you find it as hard as I do to really commit to one side or the other?

Read More

Driving Around with Big Brother

Example of an Event Data Recorder (EDR) Device via http://www.njlawman.com/news/event-data-recorder.htm



Bruce Schneier - Black Box Records in Automobiles (May 26, 2011)
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/05/black_box_recor.html

Keith Barry - Automotive Black Boxes, Minus the Gray Area (May 23, 2011)
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/05/automotive-black-boxes/

"Binary Blogger" - Black Boxes In Your Car, Safety Issue Or Easier To Apply Blame? (May 31, 2011)
http://technorati.com/technology/article/black-boxes-in-your-car-safety/

Alex Nishimoto -Thread of the Day: Do You Support Having a “Black Box” in Your Car? (May 27, 2011)
http://wot.motortrend.com/thread-day-support-having-black-box-car-82309.html#ixzz1O9YaRezR

* * *

In Cory Doctorow's free e-book version of Little Brother, security technologist and author, Bruce Schneier pens one of the afterwards.

I have since checked out Schneier's website and have subscribed to his blog feed.

Recently, Schneier pointed out that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's is considering the proposal of new rules for the United States that would make it a requirement for automobile makers to install "black box" event data recorders (EDR's) in all new vehicles. These black boxes would always be turned on, the data collected would likely be a trade secret, and most people would probably only be vaguely aware of their existence (and only then because of a legal disclosure in the owners manual, which disclosure likely explains that to tamper with the device may make affect your warranty coverage).

The information recorded by these black boxes could, in turn, be used by insurance companies, law enforcement, and the automobile companies themselves, for instance.

Creepy? Outrageous? Well, according to Keith Barry's May 23rd Wired.com article:

Automakers have long installed electronic data recorders in their automobiles, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has since late 2006 required automakers to tell consumers about the devices. That federal rule also outlines what information is recorded and stipulates that it be used to increase vehicle safety.

For instance, since the early 1990's nearly all GM vehicles with airbags have contained these EDR devices, which have evolved over time to collect data from at least 30 different data points.

The data can be used by the auto manufacturer's for improving safety and analyzing collisions. (Sounds ok, right?)

In the case of a lawsuit, this data can be used as evidence if permitted by state law. State law can also determine whether law enforcement can access the data without a warrant or subpoena.

Technorati.com writer, "Binary Blogger," poses some great "food for thought" about this issue:

...you have no idea what is being recorded. Speed, brakes, engine statistics would be the basic data points you would think are getting stored, but what about GPS position? With almost every car new having a GPS installed in them, why couldn't they store your coordinates as you drive as well? Record if you have your seat belt on or not? Look at the volume of your radio? Detect how many people are in the car? If your car has a camera system, who says they are not taking a picture every 30 seconds and storing it? Cars today have several computers all over the place to control fuel, brakes, electrical, etc... all it takes is a small change to record a data point.

Some insurance companies have been offering reduced premiums for drivers who agree to have their driving monitored by the insurance companies via EDR technology. For at-risk drivers, this would be a tempting way to be able to stay on the road.

I found MotorTrend's poll on the question of whether its readers support having black boxes installed in their vehicles interesting, as well. As one commenter, "Tom", put it:

The reason there is no outrage over GM using them is that if you truly do not want one, you can simply choose another brand, or take the box out of your GM car. Also, the government would not be monitoring the boxes on one brand. If every car was required to have one, it would not be a stretch for the government to start keeping tabs on people.

Dangerous Questions?
Does your car have a black box installed? Check out your owner's manual and the lists maintained at HarrisTechnical.com.

Unless you drive an older vehicle and/or a vehicle without air bags, chances are your car is using EDR technology. It looks like my 1999 Jeep Wrangler may be "black box"-free (with Wranglers carrying the technology for 2007 models and newer).

Now that you've determined whether you have been driving around with a black box, how do you feel about this? Relieved? Safe? Annoyed? Angry? Indifferent?

Read More

Controversial Films in Library Collections

Last week during group forum discussion for this course, we examined a 2010 article by Rebecca Hill entitled, "Gritty, Tough, Edgy, and Controversial: YA Authors Who Tackle Forbidden Subjects and Why They Do It", which basically relates Hill's examination of the issue of library book challenges and library censorship. Hill interviews several YA book authors who are known for writing these kinds of books--namely Judy Blume, Laurie Halse Anderson, Joni Richards Bodart, Ellen Hopkins, and Alex Sanchez--who provide insight into their own motivations for choosing to write "gritty, tough, edgy and controversial" books. The final few lines of Hill's article are especially powerful (don't you agree?):

Bodart says that as educators, we have to acknowledge the real role these books can play in a teen's life: helping them meet the monster face to face or asking for the help they need to overcome it. Anderson believes that when we acknowledge this fact, "our culture will move forward and support teachers and librarians by respecting their professional expertise, and [embrace] the wisdom that good stories offer teens, instead of fearing books that reflect reality."

Today the BBC featured an article about the Italian film director, Ruggero Deodato, whose 1979 horror flick Cannibal Holocaust is notoriously controversial because of its realistic graphic violence (including sexual violence) and footage of the unsimulated killing of seven animals.

Apparently, after the 1979 premiere of this film in Italy, Deodato was arrested on obscenity charges and even faced "snuff film" charges because of false rumors that human actors had been killed on camera. Even once the rumors were dispelled, Cannibal Holocaust was banned in perhaps as many as 50 countries. Released on DVD with nearly six minutes of some of the more graphic parts of the film cut in 2001, to this day, some countries maintain a ban on this hard-core cult classic.

The basic plot of this mockumentary-style B-movie is that a documentary film crew shooting footage of indigenous tribes in the Amazon has gone missing and a second film crew finds the first crew's footage which tells the tale of their horrible fates, which includes (as you can imagine) death by cannibalism.


In 2006, Cannibal Holocaust was named by Entertainment Weekly magazine the 20th most controversial film of all-time. There are several different versions of the film--from unedited versions to versions edited to various degrees, and today the BBC is reporting on this story because on this very night in London at Brunel University's Cine-Excess V Cult Film Conference, Deodato is premiering a new version he created himself. Deondato will also be contributing to a public debate on the topic of censorship this evening. (I hope to read more on this later.)

Similar to Rebecca Hill's article on the YA authors who pen controversial books, Masters examines the question, "Had Ruggero Deodato known about the level of controversy caused by the release of Cannibal Holocaust, what would he have done differently?"

To this question, Deodato remarks, "I think the cuts of the new edition are right. If I had the chance to go back in time, I'd have avoided the animal killings. I paid a high price for that, such as losing the pleasure of introducing Cannibal Holocaust to the UK public."

Nice job, Deodato, of kissing up to the audience, btw (-;

While I've yet to see Cannibal Holocaust (as a fan of the horror genre in general, and over-the-top graphic violence specifically, it's been on my "to watch" list for a long time now), I am interested in whether I will think it is a well-made social commentary on the modern world in that it compares Western society a cannibalistic society, or maybe I'll agree that it explores "...the rape of the natural world by the unnatural; the exploitation of 'primitive' cultures for western entertainment" (Wikipedia citing Mark Goodall's book, Sweet & Savage: The World Through the Shockumentary Film Lens).

Perhaps I'll be so impressed that I will also believe it is "one of the greatest horror movies ever filmed" (Wikipedia citing Mike Bracken, TheHorrorGeek.com), or at least one of the ten greatest Grindhouse films (Wikipedia citing IGN.com).

Likely, I'll be able to relate to Eric Henderson (Slate Magazine) who has said that the film is "...artful enough to demand serious critical consideration, yet foul enough to christen you a pervert for even bothering."

Given the controversy caused by this film, it might be quite easy for someone in the position of choosing movies for a library's collection to focus only on the reasons to refrain from purchasing any version of Cannibal Holocaust.

However, in line with the ALA's philosophy of "intellectual freedom, I agree with the statement of Dr. Robin Moeller in this week's lecture that you should, "Ask yourself how this material is going to make your collection more balanced as opposed to thinking of reasons why you should exclude it."


Dangerous Questions?
Would you agree with Dr. Moeller in this case? I'm especially curious if you aren't a fan of these kinds of films. Afterall, we have the children to protect...

What do you think about the ALA's stance on advisory labels on audiovisual materials (including movies, of course), which the ALA examines in "Access for Children and Young Adults to Nonprint Materials: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights"?



(Check out WorldCat for libraries that do hold this film in their collection... HERE'S THE LINK!)


Addendum to my original post:
Bradley's comments below alerted me to the fact that I left out that Deodato has adamantly claimed that the animals that were killed onscreen were actually fated to be slaughtered by the local Colombian people that were part of the movie cast. After the filming, they were ultimately eaten by these tribespeople.



Sources
"Access for Children and Young Adults to Nonprint Materials: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights." American Library Association (Online). Web. 26 May 2011. <http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=interpretations&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=31870>

"Cannibal Holocaust." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Web. 26 May 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibal_Holocaust>.

Hill, Rebecca. "Gritty, Tough, Edgy, and Controversial: YA Authors Who Tackle Forbidden Subjects and Why They Do It." Voice of Youth Advocates 33.1 (2010): 30-2. Education Full Text. Web. 26 May 2011. (Also hosted at http://s640if.wikispaces.com/file/view/Gritty,+Tough,+Edgy.pdf)

Masters, Tim. "'Video Nasty' Director Deodato Debates Censorship." BBC (Online). 26 May 2011. Web. 26 May 2011. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13550879>

---

"Only the suppressed word is dangerous."

- Karl Ludwig Börne, German journalist (1786-1837)

Read More

Libraries and Consumer Empowerment

Image Source: Zazzle.com

Two recent articles that relate to online privacy and consumer empowerment have been on my mind:

Some Thoughts on Internet Privacy Legislation (Law Librarian Blog; 5 May)

Internet data collection: The privacy line (LA Times; 8 May)

The LA Times piece boldly opens:

Apple introduced its Macintosh computer in 1984 with a now-famous Super Bowl commercial that showed a lone rebel striking out against Big Brother. So it was ironic that researchers recently accused the company of an Orwellian intrusion into consumer privacy: Its iPhones and iPads appeared to be tracking their users' movements.

The researchers referred to by the LA Times article, Alasdair Allan and Pete Warden, have caused quite a stir since their April 20th O'Reilly Radar article came out. The subsequent media coverage about Allan and Warden's discovery that Apple's smart phones with iOS4 operating system contain an unencrypted file with time-stamped, frequently updated GPS coordinates of nearby Wi-Fi hot spots and cellphone towers--data that could go back several months or even a year. When syncing with your computer, the file can be accessed by anyone using that computer, as well. Apple has issued an official response to this discovery, maintaining that it has never tracked the movements of its customers and therefore personal privacy has not been breached, that the data used to help calculate locations faster for applications such as maps while using less battery power, and that third-party apps do not, have not, and will not be provided any data on their devices unless the consumer explicitly agrees to this.

Side Note: In my opinion, South Park's recent Human CENTiPAD episode skillfully and hilariously addresses Apple's GPS tracking as well as the issue of corporate terms that consumers are responsible for understanding and agreeing to in order to access updates, applications, etc.

Check out 10 Things South Park Human CENTiPAD Got Right.

Essentially, Apple has described this unencrypted file an unintentional "bug" that will be "fixed" by an update that will be released soon that reduces the size of the file/duration of time the data is kept and gives consumers the option of turning off the "Location Services." On the other hand, Apple customers can easily change the settings on their device to automatically encrypt all back up data, but why would the average smart phone user think to do this unless they were aware of potential privacy issues?

The media attention and public outcry that has evolved since the April 20th O'Reilly Radar Apple tracking story (which could have been broken about a year ago) has caught the attention of federal legislators who now are holding hearings regarding consumer privacy (in light of concerns about Apple as well as consumer data being tracked by Google, Facebook, and other online entities). In Some Thoughts on Internet Privacy Legislation, several sobering points are examined, including:

• 64% of Americans with cell phones use smart phones
• There is conflict within government regarding its own potential needs to use such data as evidence in criminal investigations (according to the May 10th testimony given by Jason Weinstein, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Criminal Division)
• Courts have been ruling that governments do not necessarily need a warrant to conduct computer hard drive (and smart phones/mobile device) search and seizures.
• Marketing and law enforcement agencies view such consumer privacy data as a goldmine, and therefore have a lot at stake should the laws change.
• In light of incidents such as the government's fight to keep the library provisions in each re-authorization of the PATRIOT Act, it is not hard to imagine that the current Senate hearings will not lead to any meaningful changes. In fact, it is in the interest of these stakeholders to keep consumers unprotected and disempowered.

Dangerous Questions?

In terms of the philosophy of "intellectual freedom," and with competing priorities and financial considerations in mind, is it at all common for libraries as organizations and library administrators to make it a priority to provide programs, services, and resources to the community that would directly empower consumers to become aware of current and ongoing privacy issues, while connecting these issues with the broad range of issues that can fall under the umbrella of intellectual freedom?

Do "canned programs" like Banned Books Week and Choose Privacy Week go far enough?

If you were employed by a library-related institution that did not prioritize such programs, services, and resources, under what circumstances and how far would you be willing to go to advocate for your community?

---

"Only the suppressed word is dangerous."

- Karl Ludwig Börne, German journalist (1786-1837)

Read More

Welcome...

Image Source: Flickr User Nicole Salow
(Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic License)

How's it going?

This is my obligatory "welcome" post.

I'm currently a MLS (Master of Library Science) distance-student at the School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University Bloomington at Indianapolis (what a mouthful!).

This blog has been created as part of the course requirements for a seminar in "Intellectual Freedom" within the context of the library/info science profession.

What is Intellectual Freedom? Well, I've got some notions, but I guess this course is going to help me flesh them out.

Come... learn with me.

Dangerous Words??
"Only the suppressed word is dangerous."
- Karl Ludwig Börne, German journalist (1786-1837)

Read More