Slashdot Mirror
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."
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...
this sig deleted by another sig
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.
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?
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.
Monstar L
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.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
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.
l ications/nphs-sboc/nphs16_e.html
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ccdpc-cpcmc/cancer/pub
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.
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
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 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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Not everyone who uses a library frequently has the $$$ to plop down on a book
/. 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.
/. 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.
This isn't a matter of just not having the money - you'd think that the geeks on
I know the idiotic
Isn't there some old phrase about learning your history so it doesn't repeat itself?
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
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.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
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)?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.