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

[Kainaw]

Not everyone who uses a library frequently has the $$$ to plop down on a book

This isn't a matter of just not having the money - you'd think that the geeks on /. would be able to take a couple minutes out of their day to search for library history on Google. Originally, libraries were private. Then, many went 'public', but charged a membership fee. After many years of fighting for equal rights, the membership fees were abolished so that even the poorest Americans would be allowed to use the resources at the public library.

I know the idiotic /. solution is that the poor people who can't afford to plop down cash can just get an old card - one that isn't anonymous. Toss equal rights right out the window. The rich get to be anonymous. The poor get tracked.

Isn't there some old phrase about learning your history so it doesn't repeat itself?

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?

[Scrameustache]

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...

I would LOVE this thing if it were implemented. I could go to public libraries when travelling! I could borrow a book I really need for my schoolwork when I forgot my regular library card, etc.

This is a great idea, not only for privacy, but for convenience. You get to use the ressource without the hassle, and it doesn't cost you a fortune, you loan them money, they loan you a book, you exchange it back when you are done. Everyone's happy!

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

Why don't you go work on solving them instead of posting on slashdot then?
Don't know where to start? Go volunteer to help out your local "overworked librarian", I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

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:Who will pay for this?

[makohund]

I don't think this will ever fly, either. There is a lot of time/money invested in cataloging library materials... they can't afford books walking out the door with no accountability. Which I can GUARANTEE would happen in spades.

A deposit to cover the cost of the book isn't enough. Even a hefty processing fee wouldn't cover it. It's not just money, either... the library has chosen the item for a reason, and wishes it to be available to the public. When an item is lost&paid, it isn't available until it can be re-ordered/re-added, which takes time... enough of this takes place already (via both legitimate claims AND white lies) without helping it along with a "hey, it's like a bookstore!" option.

See, I work for a library (sysadmin) and I can tell you straight up that librarians don't actually give a crap about fines, fees, and replacement charges.

They just want their stuff back, so other people can use it. It's what we're here for, right? Fines are nothing more than a necessary incentive to bring stuff back when you are supposed to. So other people can use it. Without them, people wouldn't. Sometimes they don't anyway. Many libraries hold "amnesty weeks" on a regular basis to encourage people just to give us back the stuff, and we'll forget about the whole thing. Replacement charges are there to accomodate legitimate cases of patrons losing material, allowing them to make it right.

Amazingly enough, There are those that just take stuff and pay the charges anyway.

It's tough enough already to keep stuff from being stolen. Add an anonymous aspect to the "I can just pay for this item instead of return it" attitude... my goodness! How on earth would we keep half of the stuff from walking out the door for good?

Besides, this is a solution to a non-problem. Librarians are ingrained with the traditions of "freedom to read", and protecting patrons right to privacy in that regard. You think you hate the Patriot Act? Most librarians spit venom at any mention of it. (Not out on the floor with the public of course.)

I've sat in seminars with over a thousand of my peers (at vendor sponsored conferences, no less) where honoring those traditions and preserving patron privacy in the face of Patriot Act was the topic of the day. Presentations were given by libraries and organizations that fought it from the get-go. Not sure why I tell you this, other than perhaps hoping it inspires some kind of confidence.

If you are truly concerned about privacy, and how your library handles it, ask the librarians. They'll probably be happy to help you. They may even refer you to the director, invite you to a library board meeting, or put you in contact with a sysadmin that might be happy to chat. (Yeah, we're busy. But some stuff is important, and public perception of privacy is a biggie on that list.)

Have you discovered your library has no privacy policy, or a lousy policy? Ask about getting it changed. Talk to the Director. No luck? Go straight to the library board and hit them up with it. Still no luck? Ask the ALA what you can do about it. Put a bug in the local media's ear. If there is a "Library Friends" group of some kind, join it. Heck, get yourself on the library board. Don't just sit & bitch. Kick some ass!

Now, check this bit from the article:

Unfortunately, if an over-zealous special agent on a fishing expedition wants to know who checked out Anti-Flag's album The Terror State yesterday, the librarian will probably have little choice. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, he or she would have to surrender the personal identity information that was originally collected to protect the library's materials.

Yeah, well... there's a reason must of us purge logs that would disclose personal circulation history (and similar info) on a daily basis. Doesn't neccessarily have anything to do with the Patriot Act o

Only $20?

[Marii]

I work in a library. $20 is a small fine... many users end up with over $50, and I've seen hundreds owing (it's not that hard.. lose 4 hardcovers and that's nearly $200 right there). I would only think this would work if the deposit was much higher.. but of course then no one would use it.

Library != Bookstore

[pjwhite]

Thats great if you want to turn the library into a bookstore. Dropping $15 (or whatever) for a book is no big deal for some people and they will feel no obligation to return the book.

Privacy First

[JJ]

I would say that all librarians are very concerned about privacy issues. My IS degree was thru the graduate library school (so I had to take a few courses there) and the first thing they taught was that what and if somebody reads is that person's business and no one else's. The librarian has an interest in the book (and it being returned promptly) but not in the person or what they do with the book within their allotted time.

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.

Some reasons I do not like this

[mzs]

First of all, the 'value' of the material you check-out should be increased from the purchase price. I regularly use inter library loan to get materials that are next to impossible to find otherwise. If this system was anonymous and the price of CD say was $15, then all of the obscure music would quickly vanish from circulation. You would need to increase the value to say $60 to discourage stealing.

The way that libraries counteract stealing now is that they have a dollar limit above which they do not lend further materials out to you and you can only have one library card per name address pair. So even if the value is comparable to real world cost, the fact that you can only steal a limited amount before you can return to steal more, and the fact that if you steal enough at one time they will put you in collection work well enough to prevent casual theft.

Already at that increased value rate for the card, this would turn-away most people. But say that they did not mark-up the value, just wait until you have three kids like I do. Right now I have some twenty odd books/videos/CDs checked-out from the library near my home. I also have two movies, two books, and 11 CDs that I am returning today to the library near my work. I do not even know how much my wife has checked-out, but she is a pretty voracious reader too. Think about how much money we would need to set aside for that.

So why is this being proposed? It looks like it is a solution to the wrong end of the problem. The real problem are the laws that force libraries to turn-over information. So guess what the solution is? Yes that's right, change those laws.

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.

Priorities

[TapeCutter]

I would describe the the first few years of my (way too young) marriage as "first world poverty", we were easily in the bottom 20% bracket. I lost access to the library because I could not afford to pay the fine for a misplaced book. My answer was "op-shops" and second hand books, I never went without smokes because I rolled my own and to this day (25yrs later) I am still addicted. The biggest problem with being poor is that you get oh-so-fucking-sick of scrimping and chasing work. When you occasionally get a wad of cash you stock the cuboards, pay the red bills, get new clothes for the kids and blow the rest on a dirty weekend because you just want a break from it, even for a day.

I agree 100% with your sentiments (except poor does not imply uneducated), if you really want privacy you will find the $50 (~2 slabs in Australian money). If you are that dirt poor that you can't afford it then simply read the book in the library, trust me, you will have the spare time and it will cut down your smoking (librarians frown on that type of thing in thier library).

Librarians are a powerfull force in upholding everyones right to read Chairman Mao, the Koran, the Bible, the Unabomer's manifesto, Osama BL's diatribes or anything we fucking feel like. The interest from a single account would amount to the best part of nothing to anyone living in a country that has local libraries in the first place. If the system became popular, (no offence but I'm sure you would get takers in the US), the total interest could be a tidy sum and used to enhance what I consider is a service at the core of any "free" civilization.

To all the naysayers that are throwing up red herrings such as poverty what is the alternative besides the current status-quo (ie: no option of annonomous accounts for anyone)?

Has anyone actually read the USA PATIOT Act?

[vortex2.71]

I'm not a big fan of the PATRIOT Act, but I'm always apalled by the number of people, and who pontificate on its provisions without actually reading them! The referenced article states " Unfortunately, if an over-zealous special agent on a fishing expedition wants to know ... the librarian will probably have little choice. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, he or she would have to surrender the personal identity information that was originally collected to protect the library's materials."

This just isn't true! If you are going to express opinions on the PATTRIOT Act then try reading some of it so that your opinion is based on fact. The pertinent section of the PATRIOT Act is Title II section 215

Anyone notice the part about it not applying to activities protected by the first ammendment? Or the part about needing a warrant from a judge? Or the part about the agent needing to have a particular rank to pursue a library inquiry?

Here is the text of section 215, although a download of the PDF serves much better:

"SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT. Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following: ''SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS. ''(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution. ''(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall-- ''(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and ''(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. ''(b) Each application under this section-- ''(1) shall be made to-- ''(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or ''(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and 50 USC 1861. ''(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. ''(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section. ''(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a). ''(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section. ''(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context."