[WEB4LIB] RE: FBI to monitor libraries

[Andrew I. Mutch]

I think libraries need to think about their role in defining the
expectation of privacy on public computers. We have privacy laws that
cover patron records mainly because libraries and privacy advocates pushed
for them and vociferously fight attempts to water them down. If we take
the lead in:

1) Pushing to extend these laws to cover public computer use

2) Creating the expectation of privacy by stating in policy and in action
that individual use will not be monitored. If the library has a public
policy that it will treat public computer use like it treats the checking
out of print and related materials, that creates a whole new situation for
the judges to consider. 

Now, there will be some who will argue that it's not good policy to create
such an expectation. I can also see many issues that need to be discussed
in relation to this. But libraries need to take the lead in moving this
debate forward. If we don't, the politicians are going to decide for us.

Andrew Mutch
Library Systems Technician
Waterford Township Public Library
Waterford, MI




On Fri, 31 May 2002, Daniel Messer wrote:

> "Cantona, Eric" <ECantona at plcmc.org> said:
> 
> > I don't know of a single case in which the Supreme Court (or lower) has
> > ruled that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the use of a
> > public computer.
> > 
> > Anyone else?
> > EC
> 
> I have no knowledge of any such case. But then again, it's more than obvious to me that the justice system still thinks computers are magical boxes and the Internet is even more inexplicable. Like Arthur C. Clarke has said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
> 
> However, I would have to agree with a lack of privacy on public machines. I could see many judges ruling that public machines could legally have lower privacy standards than private machines. This may sound stupid, but remember, these are the same judges that find defendents not guilty for using cameras to look up women's skirts because, after all, the woman is in a public place and thus supposedly gives up some of her privacy. (True story.)
> 
> That aside, what of the library's own machines running things like OPAC and the automation system? While these machines are funded with public tax dollars, are they still public machines? Or are they different and should someone have a reasonable expectation of privacy on such machines?
> 
> Finally, what exactly constitutes a public computer and the expectation of privacy one can have while using it? Okay, a public internet terminal may not have privacy considerations, but where does one draw the line? I can make a pretty good case that an ATM is a public computer which is no more task specific than an Internet kiosk. Should one have a reasonable expectation of privacy at an ATM? Then why not a library net station?
> 
> Just some thoughts for a Friday morning.
> 
> Dan 
> 
> -- 
> Mondai wa
> The subject in question...
> -------------
> Daniel Messer
> Assistant Circulation Manager
> Yakima Valley Regional Library
> dmesser at yvrl.org
> 509-452-8541 ext 761
> 102 N 3rd St  Yakima, WA  98901
> -----------
> When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
>                                          -Hunter S. Thompson
> Just because nobody complains doesn't mean all parachutes are perfect.
>                                          -Benny Hill
> 
> 
>