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?

Blog Post #8

I have not served on a jury myself, but this story regarding courtrooms and Twitter got me thinking about what that experience would be like. This article on Cnet News mentions how courts are complaining about Twitter and blogs compromising the integrity of trials. In various cases, there have been multiple jurors found to have “tweeted” during and after trials, as well as having posted on blogs. Attorneys apparently check the sites and blogs of potential jurors (this made me cringe). Additionally, some jurors were caught using their iPhones and Blackberrys to do research. A piece in the NY Times says that jurors are not supposed to look for any other information regarding the case - that they must reach a verdict based solely on the evidence that is presented to them within the courtroom walls.

Although I don’t have experience with all of this, I think I agree that jurors should not be doing outside research. While I realize that not all the facts may be presented during a trial, and that someone may get frustrated and let their curiosity get the best of them, I also realize that not all jurors have access to the Internet. So, it would seem a bit alarming if some jurors were reaching a verdict based on courtroom evidence, while others used that in addition to what they Googled. And while I of course support intellectual freedom, and one's right to express opinions and impart information, it just doesn't seem right that jurors would blog or "tweet" about the trial. Aren't they not supposed to discuss it? Or are these blogs/Twitter really hurting anything? But I also admit that it would be impossible to know what all jury members were doing every minute of the day. Ideally, they would all take this duty seriously and be as honest and cooperative as possible. But with today’s technologies and the fact that people (generally) can both access and give information instantly, I can’t help but wonder if the court system will have to adjust their rules and regulations.

Blog Post #7

I found this article in the Seacoast Online, about the Portsmouth Public Library canceling the final installment of the Seacoast Peace Response and Palestine Education Network’s “Palestine Teach-In.” Previous to this, the library had held three of these meetings, which were meant to show the Palestinian side of the conflict. Organizers of the series believe this last meeting was cancelled because the topic was just too controversial, while the library director claims it was due to a scheduling conflict. If the meeting room was booked far in advance, as the director stated, then there shouldn’t have been a problem. Something doesn’t add up, but I realize I am only piecing this together from 1 news article.

According to the ALA’s Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights, meeting rooms should be made available “…regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.” Considering that the library already held 3 meetings in this series, and was surely aware of their controversial content, it seems that they did open up their facilities “on an equitable basis.” However, the Intellectual Freedom Manual highlights the Cornelius case, which held that “avoidance of controversy is not a valid ground for restricting speech in a public forum” (IFM 2006, 380). I can’t help but wonder about how affected the director was by the intensity of those first 3 meetings, and also about how influenced she may have been by angered individuals or groups in the community. If fear of confrontation or controversy were good enough reasons for librarians to not allow groups to use meeting rooms, or to not order certain materials, then I’m guessing shelves (and libraries) would be empty. I just hope that the director from the Portsmouth library didn’t actually back down. But then again, how big of a role should community standards play in all of this? It sort of weirds me out to think that decisions I make could possibly lead to so much unrest, but I just have to trust myself to make the best decisions.

Intellectual Freedom Manual. Chicago, IL: American Library Association-Office for Intellectual
Freedom, 2006.

Blog Post #6

This article from the NYT is about intellectual freedom and the access that convicted criminals have not specifically to libraries, but just to literature in general. It highlights a program called Changing Lives Through Literature (CLTL). According to the website, it is “an alternative sentencing program based on the power of literature to transform lives through reading and group discussion.” Felons and other offenders are given a choice, between participating in a book club/seminar, thus granting them probation, or going to jail. The only conclusive study, involving less than 100 people, showed that participants achieved half the recidivism rate of those that did not attend. And the program only costs $500 a head, as opposed to $30,000 a year for incarceration. But this program has apparently angered some parents, who say they are paying a lot of money for their kids to take the same classes that these felons are.

I guess I didn’t feel that way after really considering this program. (I did think of prison librarians - check out this article about them). Whether or not these inmates become experts on Fitzgerald or Shakespeare, I don’t know, and I don’t know that that is the point. I think more about intellectual freedom, and how the inmates are able to read (what is chosen for them), form opinions, and express themselves, and how the act of just getting together, connecting with other people, and looking at their situations objectively would all benefit them. And it seems like, or I would like to think, that they would learn more from these experiences, than from being locked up. Ultimately, it seems like the access that this program (and prison libraries) affords people could better prepare them for the adjustment to life after prison. But should felons and criminals be given this choice? Is someone’s intellectual freedom lost once they go to jail?

Blog Post #5

Has anyone heard about all the mess going on with the read-aloud technology and the Kindle? Roy Blount Jr., president of the Authors Guild, wrote an op-ed in the Times yesterday about it, and how because it has this new text-to-speech technology, authors should be fairly compensated for it - that Amazon cannot offer this service since copyright-holders are not participating. "What the guild is asserting is that authors have a right to a fair share of the value that audio adds to Kindle 2’s version of books." The Guild has caused quite a stir. The National Federation of the Blind accused them of trying to limit their access.

Authors already get paid for the sale of their books on Kindle. So with audio rights, this means they would get paid more? And wouldn't this mean that Amazon would have to end up charging users more for the reader? It seems this would limit access for people, financially. What about those who use it because they are blind or visually impaired? And then there are the people who simply choose not to use this feature of the Kindle. Maybe Blount is just trying to get authors and publishers an even bigger piece. And just how much control should a creator have over their information? I'm allowed to read aloud to myself in the comfort of my own home. Authors aren't strolling into classrooms, library storytimes, and bedtimes, demanding a fee for their stories having been read aloud. So why get paid for this? Isn't the key difference the fact that this is text-to-speech, that it does not involve a person reading it aloud, properly (like on an audiobook)?

And really, I don't think a computerized voice is going to be confused with one such as those you could find on an audiobook. For those that listen to audiobooks, I'm sure that many are still going to go to the library and get their free David Sedaris audiobook, where he is actually reading one of his books, rather than choose to hear some computer voice. Then again, this is only the beginning of this text-to speech technology on the Kindle 2. With more money being put into read-aloud technology, perhaps it will advance to the point where it will sound just as good as audiobooks. Until then, I'm not sure I fully understand why Blount is so upset.

Blog Post #4

This article made me think of community standards and censorship. The St. Louis County Library has made the decision to put additional labels saying “high school” on teen books that contain sexual content. In addition, signs will be placed throughout the teen section, explaining that these books are meant for 9th-12th graders. Area group Citizens Against Pornography (CAP) had complained about certain books. The titles in question were said to “contain graphic depictions of homosexual and heterosexual sex acts not suitable for young readers.” The article mentions that some people feared teens would fantasize about these depictions (as if they can’t do that otherwise), and that they might even lead to an increase in STDs.

“Charles Pace, St. Louis County Library executive director, said the purpose of the labeling system is not to prevent people from checking out materials…” But this community has undoubtedly heard about CAP protesting these books, and that letter ‘P’ leaves quite an impression - these books might as well be labeled “porn.” I am guessing that this labeling system will prevent at least some people from checking these out altogether – even if their kids are old enough. And unfortunately there may be others, who may not want or think to take the time to review these books themselves, who will rely only on these labels in making their decisions.

I wonder if these labels are just going to draw more attention to the items, and cause more kids to want to check them out. I also think about the authors of these books, and how they intended them to simply be Young Adult or Teen books, and would perhaps not be thrilled with these extra labels and their possible implications. I know that these books were not actually removed, but in a way, it still seems like censorship. By applying these labels to them, they're sort of removing them from all other teen books.