Comments on: Privacy, Shmivacy

By: nerfballsRannoying

nerfballsRannoying — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:58:52 +0000

very short comment, Annoyed Librarian: I am trying to join the Annoyed Librarian Association and there is no longer a button from which to send you a note saying just sign me up. Are there plans to add a contact me button to your blog?

By: Bobbie

Bobbie — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:44:36 +0000

What about privacy? Is anyone troubled by a centralized database of everyone’s medical records?

By: Mr. Kat

Mr. Kat — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:07:05 +0000

I was raised on a state helth welfare system. It was swift, neat, and efficient. The democrats have been pushing for a universal healthcare system, so this does not surprise me in the least.

A government centered system might be the best way to control and minimize liability issues. If it weren't for liability insurance each provdier carries, our health costs might be significantly less.

By: Bobbie

Bobbie — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:38:10 +0000

Is anyone concerned with the section of the stimulus bill that will requires the Dept. of Health and Human Services to electronically collect and create a centralized database of every citizen’s medical records, so that they can be the final arbiter of medical treatments allowed?

By: Mr. Kat

Mr. Kat — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:28:33 +0000

Now this brings back memories of my old MLS Ethics course!!

If I have learned anything in the process of becoming a librarian, it is that librarians love making rules and then finding excuses not to follow them.

I do believe this law of exemptions would mean that the ALA follows a Utilitarian code of ethics…though today I forget precisely why that is such a bad idea. If I recall right, it is because eventually you simply run the course where EVERYTHING is an exemption and the rule no longer means anything.

What I do know for certain is that my ethics course was as frustrating as the two philosophy classes I took as an undergraduate. What I understand today is that this school of thought loves to first tear apparent everything you ever thought you knew, proving it false or incongruent by their logical thought. Then by some magical means they add in a little exemption, or a piece of circular logic, or some argument they say is always right, no matter what – even after they have just finished explaining how that conclusion itself is unacceptable. And then they build their entire universe on that shaky foundation.

I think the simplest way to go about things is to throw out these complex ideas and accept the universe for what it is. Any social construct implemented in that universe will only stand for as long as people believe in it. For this reason it becomes apparent that while you and I have the freedom to breathe, others can freely take that breath away unless we do something to prevent them from doing so. And this goes for all things including those things we think are rights, including life, liberty, the pursuit of property, intellectual freedom, the equality of races, the equality of genders – so on and so forth; these idea are not natural! Our ideals only exist for as long as WE CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN THEM!!!

All I have to say is that in the end, modern philosophy truly frustrates me to no end. At least the religious guys can claim possession by a supernatural being! Modern Library Ethics took the cake, however, once it came time to taking all we had learned in 15 weeks and used it to compose our own ethical stance in the last week. Somewhere along the line we got too complicated and committed a number of logical fallacies.

The Utilitarian Ethic comes the closest: take each case as a case unto itself, and do what is best with what you know. In this case, though I disagree with HOW Fresno State handled the case [The pilot should have reimbursed them for the book AT THE LEAST!!] this story warms the cackles of the hearts of library lovers everywhere. And in the interests of getting libraries into the headlines of the world in what is a tough economy, we have to make every bit of positive growth we can out of what the world gives us!

By: anonymous

anonymous — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:22:14 +0000

Wow, talk about assuming facts not in evidence. But as we all know, AL has never met a straw man argument she didn’t like.

By: smuglibraries.org

smuglibraries.org — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:42:32 +0000

Dan, when you say there is “smut” in the library, are you suggesting that the ALA supports the use of the black colloidal substance consisting wholly or principally of amorphous carbon and used to make pigments and ink? Because if so I fully agree with you that this substance is harmful to children and that the ALA is anti-American as a result of their continued support of this nefarious substance.

By: Detached amusement

Detached amusement — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:39:04 +0000

“The principles of this Code are expressed in broad statements to guide ethical decision making. These statements provide a framework; they cannot and do not dictate conduct to cover particular situations.” This is the escape door to deniability. It essentially says, “We’d like to see it done this way, but we can’t say to do it this way.” In another true “profession”, like law, or health related services, teaching you have regulatory boards and licensing/certification. You also have courses specifically about professional ethics. Step over the line and you get suspended. To give you an example, taken from real life, there was an attorney who took clients’ money, then failed to prepare for the case. This individual was suspened and warned – DON’T DO IT AGAIN. The attorney had further complaints and had his license yanked indefinately. He was trying to survive selling real estate. Lots of luck…
I know of another case, in an East Coast library, where a “selection committee” was put together to interview candidates for a position. People who applied for the job went to time and expense to come over to interview. The “committee” suggested candidate A for the job. The head librarian hired candidate B – it was an inside deal and the person “selected” had an inside track from the get-go, and the others came all the way over and unknowingly window-dressed the situation. Apparently the woman running the library was not taken to task, and probably retired in the slot years later. Such is the state of things. I am sure there are people here who could relate other episodes. Censorship cases are ALA’s stalking horse. Trot out Judith Krug when the news media calls with a case of a book being challenged as a part of a library collection.

By: Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries.org

Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries.org — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:25:53 +0000

Why thank you, AL. As you know, “Smut!” is the ALA’s anthem. See, listen and learn here:

http://www.safelibraries.org/thealaanthem.htm

By: For The Record

For The Record — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:09:18 +0000

Code of Ethics of the American Library Association As members of the American Library Association, we recognize the importance of codifying and making known to the profession and to the general public the ethical principles that guide the work of librarians, other professionals providing information services, library trustees and library staffs. Ethical dilemmas occur when values are in conflict. The American Library Association Code of Ethics states the values to which we are committed, and embodies the ethical responsibilities of the profession in this changing information environment. We significantly influence or control the selection, organization, preservation, and dissemination of information. In a political system grounded in an informed citizenry, we are members of a profession explicitly committed to intellectual freedom and the freedom of access to information. We have a special obligation to ensure the free flow of information and ideas to present and future generations. The principles of this Code are expressed in broad statements to guide ethical decision making. These statements provide a framework; they cannot and do not dictate conduct to cover particular situations. We provide the highest level of service to all library users through appropriate and usefully organized resources; equitable service policies; equitable access; and accurate, unbiased, and courteous responses to all requests. We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources. We protect each library user’s right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted. We respect intellectual property rights and advocate balance between the interests of information users and rights holders. We treat co-workers and other colleagues with respect, fairness, and good faith, and advocate conditions of employment that safeguard the rights and welfare of all employees of our institutions. We do not advance private interests at the expense of library users, colleagues, or our employing institutions. We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties and do not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions or the provision of access to their information resources. We strive for excellence in the profession by maintaining and enhancing our own knowledge and skills, by encouraging the professional development of co-workers, and by fostering the aspirations of potential members of the profession.