Blacklists, User Monitoring

[Robert J. Tiess]

I must say, the concept of proxy blacklists has long troubled
me, as does any blockage of information, especially where
corresponding areas in print collections and comparable building
facilities continue to be accessible.  With respect to games,
there are game-related books and activities in the children's
section of many libraries.  With respect to chatting and e-mail,
there are related books, public telephones, and full text
databases that allow e-mail (vs. printing).  And while it is
one thing to read about a subject and another to apply it in
the library, is the limiting criteria to rely upon the
application of a topical area, or solely the subject itself?
Ridiculous examples could be drawn, as there are car repair
manuals in a library but no repair shops (as far as I know!),
but wherever relevant the collection treatment--electronic and
print--should be fair and equitable, promoting access,
especially if such access to information channels exist in what
may in fact be the only interface a community has with such
external resources.

Of course, I regard this matter as one who firmly believes in
completely unfettered access--even free access, but that is
another issue.  Working in public library settings for some
time now, I understand firsthand the full range of user
behavior.  There is a threshold to consider:  Does disruptive
user behavior exceed the disruption within library staffs,
many who suddenly believe they must police this access point
unlike any other?  There are no reasonably similar monitoring
activities occurring elsewhere in library facilities, other
than general security, which monitors users and generally not
the resources users are accessing (unless those resources are
logistically prone to theft).  Furthermore, these security
provisions exist not to limit patron access or to evaluate
resources; they are engaged in loss prevention and criminal
detection for the benefit of the staff and public.  Similar
provisions are regularly adapted online and at workstations
in the form of firewalls and destop security programs to
preserve the local resources and the physical point of access.
There are, I hope, no phone tappings to track a patron's
telephonic contacts.  There are, I hope, few or no children's
libraries without educational and entertaining activities or
materials to provide for such enlightening or entertaining
activities, in the library, organized or not, or at home.  No
library staff member, I hope, rushes to review what a patron has
just read or a phone number a patron has dialed in order to
remove that item from the collection or add that number to a
blacklist. Why should the Internet merit extreme special
treatment?

I know the arguments to be made against tempered access, and
they all have their well-intentioned points, such as preserving
the Internet for purely "legitimate" referential purposes (to
which I say evaluate your print collection for anything less
than "legitimate" referential material--or better yet, don't)
and limiting the potentially disruptive sound of continual
typists (to which I say purchase quieter keyboards).  Few
arguments can challenge free speech and freedom of the press
and survive without some lasting loss to civil liberties.
Having worked and corresponded with librarians the globe over,
I have yet to encounter anyone who believed their primary
mission was to block information, nor do I allege that here,
on Web4Lib, anyone descends to that level.  However, it is
something to watch for and moments we should remember, or learn,
or reconsider why public libraries exist at all.

On the legal front, I just wonder if Internet patron monitoring
and/or the sharing of such information compiled is an activity
supported under state laws.  I simply do not know, nor am I in
any sense qualified to speak on the legal end of this subject.
But it is worth deep consideration.  E.g. from the New York State
Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law & Rules:


 S  4509. Library records.  Library records, which contain names
 or other personally  identifying  details  regarding  the  users
 of  public,   free association,  school,  college and university
 libraries and library systems of this state,  including  but  not
 limited  to  records  related  to  the circulation  of library
 materials, computer database searches, interlibrary loan
 transactions, reference queries, requests for photocopies  of 
 library materials,  title  reserve  requests, or the use of
 audio-visual materials, films or records, shall be confidential
 and shall not be  disclosed  except that  such  records may be
 disclosed to the extent necessary for the proper operation of
 such library and shall be disclosed upon request or consent of
 the  user  or pursuant to subpoena, court order or where otherwise
 required by statute.
 Also see: http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/ny/nycl.html


"Library materials," "computer database searches," "reference
queries," and "use of audio-visual materials" all fall under this
state code.  The Internet, in toto, can be construed to constitute
a database and/or to contain a/v materials, and patron records kept
pertinent to that information would likely fall under similar rules
of confidentiality, rights to privacy, and so forth.  Obviously,
state laws diverge, and local laws apply too.  I am not a lawyer
nor claim to provide any legal counsel.  I am going on sheer common
sense.  The information above comes directly from a library's
website which I created and maintain.  Nonetheless, it is compelling.
It seems to me, prima facie, that cases could possibly be
successfully waged against user monitoring.  The activity rises to
federal levels, constitutional levels again, I believe, when such
monitoring abridges rights--and not only the free speech provision
of the First Amendment:  "the right of the people peaceably to
assemble" also seems relevant here, with respect to chat rooms/MUDs/
MOOs, and so forth.  And while libraries, certainly any building,
can take certain strong steps to regulate behavior to ensure the
optimal environment suited for its purposes and overall mission, the
public library is a setting--a center and forum unlike any other--
where community members converge, information is sought, found,
exchanged--freely, and not in terms of material cost--and people part
of democracy can thrive under conditions condoning intellectual
freedom and growth, and unfettered access to all publicly available
resources, be they entertaining, informational, communicative or
referential.

It seems to me a pattern has established itself in the library
world, where the Internet is initially looked upon with idealism
and excitement, then it is implemented with the staff, who suddenly
find its reference power is indeed awesome, then it is implemented
with the public, then the reconsiderations come, then the
limitations, then the realizations that the best efforts to block
every bit of bad data ultimately fail (because the data outnumbers
the reference staff by incredible ratios), then, more often than
not, a decision is rendered, by the administration, by law, or by
public pressure:  either a facility offers complete access to the
Internet or should cease Internet implementation.  It is ultimately
an all or nothing scenario, because we cannot risk--especially 
stateside--promoting the censoring of certain sites over others
using specious criteria.  Blacklisting is censorship.  Proxy
servers censor.  Censorship is not what the ALA is about, what
the modern public library should be about, and it is not what
America is about.  Elsewhere, censorship is not a positive thing
for anyone observing the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Before we revoke any further privileges, let us for a moment
remember all those who perished to establish and preserve the
very rights sought to be limited.  Let them not have perished in
vain.  Let us, instead, support their efforts and the rights of
the people, whose taxes largely fund library activities.

We should not dedicate our combined energies and resources on
blocking or eliminating information, fulfilling the dark
foreshadowings of Huxley, Orwell and Bradbury, where sterility,
public monitoring and book burning are commonplace in dystopian
zones.  There is no fulfilling end to this activity.  Instead,
more positive steps must be taken the protect public access to
information.  Public education, leading patrons to "good sites"
instead of leading them away from "bad sites," educating staff
members, learning about search engines, and understanding how
information channels such as chat rooms and e-mail are actually
positive and potentially community-empowering tools.  If any
library fails to recognize any part of this in light of its
mission statement, community opportunities will be missed,
possibly denied, freedoms of speech, press and assembly risk
diminishment, and each institution itself risks legal
consequences, which under the present climate, and for some time
to come, are vast and globally anticipated. These issues no
longer pertain merely to public libraries, but rather wherever
information is created, requested, provided or denied.


Respectfully submitted,

Robert J. Tiess

rjtiess at warwick.net
http://members.tripod.com/~rtiess



*