Week 13 Readings

Articles

Hamer, J. (2008, Sept. 24). “My Turn: Protecting privacy rights in libraries.” Library News.
http://greatlibrarynews.blogspot.com/2008/09/myturn-protecting-privacy-rights-in.html.

             Much of what J. Hamer (2008) covers involves crucial issues in privacy and security of library records. I agree with Hamer’s position on the matter overall. While clearing up and adding the librarian perspective on a Vermont law intending to protect the privacy of library records, Hamer states that the Vermont Library Association personally advocated for privacy protection for all patrons of all ages, concerned with how comfortable a child should be if they wish to research sensitive issues (Hamer, 2008, para. 3). Such a concern is logical; a child needs guidance, but information should not be limited to them based on what a parents considers “suitable” since such a stance remains subjective. Additionally, in the case of the Brooke Bennett investigation and “impeding” the search by requiring a court order to investigate information on the public computers (Hamer, 2008, para. 4), I agree that a court order should have been presented rather than have the police assume they can take whatever information they want. However, I wonder if there could be a substitute for the court order that could be used in an emergency – depending on the community, the case, and the court, there may be corruption or delays in gaining a court order that should have been acquired right away. Otherwise, though, the policy is in place to protect individuals’ safety and privacy. Most of the information acquired from the library would most likely be check-out histories, addresses, and phone numbers – the former not security-related, the latter two possibly a cause of alarm if a person has not recorded such information publicly already, but overall such information should be protected since a person’s privacy is integral and a matter of trust. If no one can live their lives without someone – whether from the government or not – acting like a “big brother” and investigating their records, no matter how useless the information is, then that person can’t live freely as an individual.

 

Shrivastava, M. (2013, July 8). “MIT’s ‘Immersion’ Project Reveals The Importance of Metadata.” Techchronic.http://techchronic.blogspot.in/2013/07/have-gmail-account-see-what-nsa-knows.html.

             I don’t know how melodramatic M. Shrivastava (2013) is in his article. He states that some officials and ministers defended the internet surveillance by NSA by claiming that “they are only collecting metadata related to your mails, messages and interactions from phone and internet companies” (Shrivastava, 2013, para. 1). It is alarming that they can access such information. Looking at the image of a social network provided (Shrivastava, 2013), one can easily see a whole communication tree. Not only can an individual see the communication lines between one person and a few others, but how it relates to a whole “community” of people, even ones who are connected to one person in the main “tree.” That is powerful; in the wrong hands, a person could be charged easily just for communicating – or communicating with someone who interacted with – a suspect or a person under investigation. The NSA does not access the content itself (Shrivastava, 2013, para. 1), so that does make a difference. It is not like they know exactly what you say, so a person has some protection. But even with the lack of information, a lot could be presumed or conjectured about a person’s interactions. Additionally, this is based on whether Shrivastava could be considered a reliable source – on the internet, anyone can lie about their identity or where they got their information.

 

“The Privacy Show.” (n.d.). On The Media. http://www.onthemedia.org/story/258658-the-privacy-show/.

            It is interesting the variety of concerns expressed over privacy issues online during the “Privacy Show” (n.d.) – mainly that it was akin to wearing an ankle bracelet tracking a person’s every “movement,” that there has not been an increase in security alongside the decrease in privacy, and that bias towards a person’s race/gender/sexuality/etc – or, in the case of one man, concerns that there may be homophobic engineers in Google who would discriminate against him – could affect an employee’s willingness to help someone online (00:00-01:16). Their range of reasons is enlightening; some people are worried that they have become “prisoners” to the system or that they lose out on giving up their privacy without any benefit taking its place or that even basic information about their identity could harm them. Overall, there is a sense that each user has lost control over their identity and abilities online, no longer “free” in the World Wide Web.

            The three factors mentioned concerning government and company “prying” into personal information online is interesting as well. Primarily these factors are the fear of terrorism, profit motives, and users’ desire for fun and convenience online (“Privacy Show,” n.d., 01:17-01:55). So it sounds like the government and companies pry because they are reacting – or want to take advantage – of the concerns of the populace. All of these factors derive from user wishes – whether for security against terrorism, especially in the wake of 9/11, or for better service.