Slashdot Mirror
Building Anonymous-Friendly Computer Libraries?
H310iSe writes "Listening to NPR today and caught a story on All Things Considered about how the FBI has demanded information on borrowing and browsing habits, including computer seizures, from 85 libraries since Sept. 11 (utilizing their new-found powers from the PATRIOT act). Similar stories (which don't require RealAudio) are here and here. The American Librarian Association is providing information for librarians to help deal with this, and it seems heavily tilted towards supporting individuals' rights to privacy. It seems like the Slashdot crowd could come up with a great library computer setup that would protect anonymity (I'm thinking about things like creating a RAM disk and loading the OS onto it). How about ways to enable people to borrow books anonymously without opening the door to large-scale theft? I bet if we offered a packaged, free, easy to install Safe Browsing computer or Anonymous Checkout program, libraries across the U.S. would enthusiastically embrace it." According to the articles, these checks can be made for any reason, not just for suspected terrorism. It seems that if the American people are going to protect their rights, they are going to have to do so actively. Is the idea presented above, feasible? How would you improve upon it?
This may very well be taken as Flamebait or Offtopic, but I can't resist sticking my nose in here.
Public Libraries are _public_ places, owned by the _government_. The government has a right to collect information from the library. It is not a private citizen's business or residence. It's almost like your telling the government not to use sonar guns to catch people on the roads.
_However_, when it comes to the FBI demanding book histories from stores like Borders, they can bugger off until they get a warrant.
This statement is false.
Perhaps the information on the reader could be encrypted with some sort of "dead man's switch", except that it is triggered to release the information to the library in the event that the book is not returned in a timely fashion. At this point, the encrypted record is purged from the system.
Maybe I'm not sure what exactly the submitter means by Anonymous Checkout, but if they don't know who checked out a book, why would anyone ever return it? I guess I'm just confused about that issue of this idea, they have to maintain some records so that they can fine people that don't return books, right?
If you ask most any librarian, he or she will tell you that they do NOT give out information regarding borrowing histories without a warrant from an official and will not give out to anyone else for ANY reason. Most libraries in colleges and universities purge all those records as soon as possible if they know what is good for them. Public libraries aren't so good at that, but still don't like keeping that information longer than they have to.
My mother has been a librarin for over thirty years at various places of business, including private corporations, public libraries and at colleges and universities and from listening to her, I believe it is the general sentiment of the ALA to protect their reader's privacy. If you all take a moment to recall, it was the librarians who fought the most against COPPA because of they inherent censorship created by the requirements.
What does happen, however, is libraries will outsource their searching services because they don't have enough money or manpower to handle the computer equipment themselves. When that happens, the business they outsource to may not have the same ideas in their head concerning privacy and censorship and will start storing this. Unless libraries get more funding, it's likely that outsourcing will continue and records will be saved.
Says the article poster:
Of course you have to be active about protecting your rights. If you let someone else "protect" your rights for you, you let that third party decide which right you have (i.e. which rights that someone will defend for you).
Methinks that instead of looking for technological solutions that will take a while to implement, we would be better off making a big deal of this issue. The more the general public knows about how FBI snoops into library records (about other things), the more stringent the public outcry.
I am not saying drop the search for a technical solution, I am saying a lot of policies can be balanced through social means rather than actively fought through some kind of enforcement tool (e.g., technology).
You need to install an RTFM interface.
It's not an ideal solution, since libraries should be in the practice of lending books for free, but it would work.
I agree. I'm still not quite sure why people are so hung up on this level of privacy if they're going to be using a public place. If it's that important to you, I'm thinking your head's not screwed on straight for thinking a public library is a good place to do sensitive research in complete anonymity.
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
I am reminded of a public service ad which demonstrated how lucky Americans are that reading activities at libraries are kept private. Ads, such as this, were produced after 9/11 to show an appreciation of individual rights.
Ironically, the new government policies for our libraries seem to have, now, deteriorated our privacy. And the ad is, now, an excellent demonstration of how the current administration has run amok.
PSA's ad, "Library" is in realmedia format. And, no. America is no longer America.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
I wonder how long it will be before it will be illegal to lend or sell books without ID and records kept!
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
... not requiring login's (there-fore not knowning where anyone that comes into the library was sitting) You see, that's the part that annoys me. Yes, protect the privacy of what they were searching for, but dammit, keep track of who they are and where they were working. Crackers aren't idiots, they know damn well where the anonymous computers are. We have this trouble with library labs all the damn time. I don't care if they were reading info on HIV, downloading insurrectionist pamphlets, or searching any number of embarrasing topics, but when ebay shows up at our door step with proof of credit card fraud coming from that pc, I damn well want you to be able to tell me who was sitting there...
A technological solution to any problem posed on Slashdot is always the community's first response. As we've seen from the history of encryption, any realistic and practical method of protecting data is eventually going to be broken.
Legislation is the answer. Not happy with a law? Last I heard America was a Democracy of sorts -- let's get out there and use the classic techniques for creating change. Vote. Write. Talk. Protest. Rage.
Or has the wealth we enjoy in North America made us too complacent?
If enough people do this then it would be impossible for TPTB to know whether you really borrowed (and read) that book or just selected it randomly.
Similar techniques are used for making survey responses anonymous.
80N
At the library where I work something similar to this happens. The only information that our computer system keeps on a patron is what items they have checked out and what fines they owe. Once they return the book or stop using a public internet station the item is checked in, removed from their record and we have no way of knowing what they have out. Now I guess someone could look at the backup tapes but we only keep a 3 week cycle of those anyways so after those are overwritten there is no way we can tell what someone has checked out. The computer system is actually better from a privacy point of view than the old system using paper cards in each book. This is because with the older paper based system the card numbers are stamped on a card which remains with the book until it is removed from the collection. Therefore, at my library at least the computers seem to be more anonomous than the old way. Of course I believe we also have a policy that we cannot release borrower information without a warrant anyways.
Some years ago, the Hampshire County Library service in the UK had two different styles of library tickets. One type was the standard cardboard wallet into which went a ticket identifying the book. On this carboard wallet, about 1.5" square, was the borrowers name and address. When you returned the book, you got the cardboard wallet back, leaving no trace of who borrowed what, and when.
The other type of ticket was the 'Fiction Token'. This was a simple, mass-produced plastic card, identical to every other plastic card, which was simply exchanged for fiction titles. You take a book, you give 'em a token. You return the book, they give you a token back, but not the same one. There's no way to track who has what.
This was all removed in the name of efficiency some years back. The current system uses barcodes in books, and barcoded member cards, tying all books to borrowers present and past. Any librarian can browse through your borrowing history, or the history of a book, almost instantaneously.
So, take a backward step for privacy. Replace your lendng libraries computer system with cardboard wallets. When a book is loaned, you do have the borrowers details, but ONLY while the borrower has the item. This allows you to chase borrowers who have not returned items. Once the item is returned, you lose the association. Simple, private, and virtually idiot-proof too. The system doesn't even need electricity. For low value items, such as paperback books, issue 'fiction tokens'. Borrowers get, say, four tokens, and if they want more, they pay the average cost of a paperback for one. Keep a log of who has how many tokens, but nothing more than that. This will catch abuses, but not provide any tracking. Librarians: You're in the library business, not the espionage business! Do your community a favour, and take a step backwards.
How do you suggest we counter the liability of loaning books to strangers?
Simple. I suggest we don't loan books to strangers. I wasn't the one advocating anonymous borrowing. Personally I think the solution is for libraries to just destroy borrowing records after the book is returned. I have no problem with libraries keeping historical data on how many times a book was borrowed, but there's no reason they should keep individual borrowing histories. And from other comments, it appears as though many libraries already use that policy. Anonymous borrowing is totally unnecessary.