This NY Times article got me excited about access and (hopefully) what will lead to a somewhat smaller gap in the digital divide. The World Digital Library was launched on April 21st, a library supported by Unesco and the Library of Congress. It “aims to promote international and intercultural understanding,” and its contents, made up of about 1,250 books, maps, and other historical items from more than 30 libraries and cultural institutions around the world, are accessible via the site. This is not the only institution of its kind – there is Europeana, supported by the EU, and Gallica, the Bibliothèque Nationale de France’s digital archive.

I (unfortunately) was not aware of those other institutions. It’s so wonderful that all of these amazing historical items, items that cannot be found in just any museum or library, are freely accessible online. What a great resource for schools and libraries of all kinds. I immediately showed the article and site to my husband (he teaches World History to 9th graders), and he was especially excited because a lot of his kids do not have internet access at home, so the more he can do in school and the more interesting things he can show them online to get them excited about World History, the better.

When I started reading this article, I was reminded of the Google Book Search project (and it was mentioned that Google gave a $3 million grant in support of the World Digital Library). But Google’s goal is quantity - to make every book they can get their hands on available online. The World Digital Library is focused more on quality, and providing people with access to fewer, unique pieces. This project just seems so open and refreshing – no quotas, and institutions can donate whatever they want to multiple archives. I think that sort of making themselves easily accessible will cause more institutions to donate, thus, making even more cultural content available to people around the world.

Blog Post #9

This story in The Washington Post highlights proposals, currently in Senate legislation, that are meant to increase U.S. defense against cyberattacks. These would include a number of regulations, not only on military networks, but also private (such as water and electricity) networks, in addition to “regulatory teeth to ensure industry compliance,” and a White House cybersecurity “czar,” someone who would have the power to shut down various private networks.

Jim Dempsey, vice president for public policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology did not like the idea of companies all having the same approach, and though cybersecurity/cyberattacks are not areas I am too familiar with, I sort of agree with him. After reading this article, I immediately thought of people’s privacy, and how so much information would be available to just one agency. But Dennis C. Blair, Director of National Intelligence, felt the opposite, saying that one group should be in charge of both government and private sector cybersecurity. Blair did address the privacy issue, stating that the design of this centralized cybersecurity program would leave Americans worry-free, knowing that their private information was not being collected.

I guess we’ll have to see how this all plays out, but something about this one big agency having all that access just doesn’t seem right. And the whole idea of a cybersecurity czar worries me – giving one person the ability to shut down entire networks if they even suspect an attack – I would assume (hope?) that they have people alongside them, helping them make "informed" decisions. Then again, the Pentagon and NSA are already monitoring military networks, and the Department of Homeland Security watching the private. So all that they’re proposing is putting someone in charge of both. Would that just simplify things, or is that giving one group/person too much power?