Anonymous Library Cards An Option?

Ben Ostrowsky writes "On the heels of the possibility of requiring fingerprinting to use library resources, librarians don't like hoarding personally identifiable information; many are keenly aware of privacy concerns. Now it appears that anonymous library cards may be a possibility on the horizon. Tell your librarian you want to be anonymous!" From the article: " You've seen anonymous cash cards already; you may even have received them before. They're better known as gift cards. Using the same principle, libraries can issue a borrower card that uses cash, rather than personal ID information, as collateral. Here's an example: If a privacy-minded user deposits $20 to get an anonymous library card, she can check out The Terror State without identifying herself. Her account balance is temporarily reduced by $15, and when the library checks the CD back in (in good condition), her balance is restored to its original value."

Comments

It can't work

[SamBeckett]

Because A) Not everyone who uses a library frequently has the $$$ to plop down on a book, even temporarily. One of the benefits of libraries is that the books are for everyone and not just us rich snobs who go to barnes and nobles every day. B) Sane people will not appreciate the library holding their dough unless they credit a decent amount of interest. Sure, it's only for a few weeks, but that money can add up fast (see: Office Space, Superman, etc).

Re:It can't work

[bobbis.u]

Why is this modded up?

What do you expect libraries to do? Give out a load of books to anonymous people with no collateral. That is basically saying anyone can come in and steal whatever books they want.

Anyone that cannot afford the $20 can still go in the library and read the book.

And what bank are you with that the interest on $20 for a few weeks is actually an appreciable amount?

Re:It can't work

[antifoidulus]

Also, libraries do not like to be treated as book stores. A lot of them have problems with people checking out books and then deciding that they like them and keeping them and deciding to pay the library for the book. A lot of libraries have been charging processing fees to replace missing books in order to deter this practice.
Remember, a majority of the people who work there are volunteers, they don't need to constantly be worrying about how to re-stock a book someone borrow-purchased. THe scheme in TFA would make a perfect book rental store(with a few dollar rental fee) but it sounds like the scheme somebody who is only thinking of themselves and not hte library.

Re:It can't work

[heli0]

You do not need to be a rich snob to purchase books. Look who the largest percentage of smokers are, people in the lowest quartile of income. If 38% of the people in that income quartile can afford $8/day for fags they can certainly afford books as well. They simply choose to fund their drug addiction instead.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ccdpc-cpcmc/cancer/publ ications/nphs-sboc/nphs16_e.html

Of course you still can argue which is the cause and which the effect. Do they make this senseless choice because they are poor and uneducated or are they poor and uneducated because of this type of choice...

"Sane people will not appreciate the library holding their dough unless they credit a decent amount of interest."

If they have $50 for an entire month how much interest have you lost? At 4% APR it is a whopping $0.16. I don't think "sane people" spend much time worrying about $0.16.

Re:It can't work

[putaro]

Actually, it's worse.

Most people won't/can't be bothered to get an anonymous library card. So, either they will be phased out, or possesion of one would be considered evidence that you're up to no good. Or, more likely, rules protecting privacy will be phased out with the excuse "well, you can get an anonymous card if you like" - but of course, no one really does.

Re:It can't work

[lav-chan]

I'm not going to take sides on this arguement, and i didn't read the actual article, but the summary does not say $5.

Here's an example: If a privacy-minded user deposits $20 to get an anonymous library card, she can check out The Terror State without identifying herself. Her account balance is temporarily reduced by $15, and when the library checks the CD back in (in good condition), her balance is restored to its original value.

That means it costs $15 and you have $5 left in the account.

Who will pay for this?

[PortWineBoy]

I'm sure our underfunded libraries and overworked librarians will find this system easy to implement.

These fingerprint scans for PC use are a stupid idea implemented by some town in Ill. I've never heard of. I'm sure that program won't fly...

Let's stop creating solutions for problems that don't exist. We have enough real problems in the US that need solutions...

Re:Who will pay for this?

[Thunderstruck]

This is actually a solution to underfunded libraries. The way the system works, I plop down my $20 deposit for an anonymous library card. So do 5,000 other people. Thats 100,000 sitting in the bank, collecting interest, and giving the library several thousand bucks extra every year.

This is much like the IOLTA system most lawyers keep. Whenever they accept money on behalf of a client, it must go into a special account. At the end of each year, the interest generated goes to fund public legal services.

Applied to libraries, nobody knows what I read, and the library gets extra funding. What's not to love?

Re:Internet Access

[aborchers]

Librarians as a profession (http://ala.org/) are privacy conscious. That doesn't necessarily mean that the policies of an individual public library, funded and run by the local political system, will be.

Re:Not a good idea in the long run

[gstoddart]

I'd rather not be anonymous at thge library. I'd rather have my reading list looked through than participate in a system meant to bypass the current political climate.

Well, sometimes librarians are the only ones fighting for you to keep having some of these rights and not having your reading habits looked through.

They seem to be the only ones who really appreciate the issues involved in the freedoms involved. Oft-times it's counrt challenges made by them that preserves such freedoms.

By participating in an anonymous system, I would feel like I was legitimising the laws and practices that I feel are attacks at my personal liberty.

By protecting your currently held rights to read what you want with privacy you legitimise attacks on your privacy?

That's effectively saying that you concede that only criminals would want to keep things private from the government, so not-guilty people have nothing to hide.

The US constitution was designed to prevent this kind of state-control of the citizenry, not make everyone who tries to uphold it into an outlaw.

Re:reason for them to check you out

[dwpro]

I agree with your friend's actions, even if they weren't motivated by a desire to protect his privacy. We should not submit to being treated like criminals, even if it makes us look more suspicious.

In this case it caused him to be treated more like a crook, but if everyone does the there will be no way to keep up with the volume. This is why it is important for everyone who cares about their privacy to stand up for it.

Most of us don't have anything to hide, we just don't want people prying unneccesarily.

I can't learn my history...

[aug24]

...I can't afford a library card.

But seriously, are you suggesting we should have universal anonymity with universal trust? You must be mad. Did you follow the 'white bicycle' and 'green bicycle' experiments?

Anyway, the 'rich' (in this case those with 20 bucks to spare) only get to be anonymous by forfeiting access to some of their money.

You might as well complain that parking schemes are only for the benefit of those who can afford a car.

Justin.