LibrarianActivist.org

Dr. Roma Harris has graciously shared a copy of the letter she sent to the London Public Library board to request delegation status for their June 20 meeting. At this meeting, the board discussed the library’s move to install filtering software on the majority of its adult public-access computers. Drs. Roma Harris and Sam Trosow were both granted delegation status. You can read all about this issue in posts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

I was in Edmonton yesterday for some training and while the trainer union-bashed I read parts of Alvin Schrader’s book Fear of Words: Censorship and the Public Libraries of Canada (Ottawa: Canadian Library Association, 1995). His study was based on a survey he sent to public libraries asking for information about their local policies and procedures around challenged books and intellectual freedom. He cites Lester Asheim who in 1953, as dean of the Graduate Library School at the University of Chicago, delivered a paper on intellectual freedom to the American Library Association’s Second Conference on Intellectual Freedom. In this “landmark” paper, (”Not Censorship But Selection” first published in the Wilson Library Bulletin, 28 (September 1953), 63-67, now on the ALA website), Asheim wrote:

Selection, then, begins with a presumption in favor of liberty of thought; censorship, with a presumption in favor of thought control. Selection’s approach to the book is positive, seeking its values in the book as a book, and in the book as a whole. Censorship’s approach is negative, seeking for vulnerable characteristics wherever they can be found—anywhere within the book, or even outside it. Selection seeks to protect the right of the reader to read; censorship seeks to protect—not the right—but the reader himself from the fancied effects of his reading. The selector has faith in the intelligence of the reader; the censor has faith only in his own.

The principle is true for Internet filtering, no? Filtering software is a tool for thought control and it has no faith in the intelligence of the Internet user. And librarians who install filtering software (especially on adult computers!) have no faith in the intelligence of their patrons. I reckon “internet filters” should be renamed “internet blinders” because they make whole parts of the Internet invisible. A filter is too benign a word when intellectual freedom is at stake.

Lester Asheim also said, “I still believe that the best solution to the problem of access is to add positively to the store of ideas, not negatively to reduce it” (cited in Schrader 14).

-SIO

**********

June 15, 2007

Secretary
London Public Library Board
251 Dundas Street
London, Ontario
N6A 6H9

Dear Secretary to the Board:

I am writing to request delegate status at the next meeting of the Board so that I might express my concerns about the proposal to increase the level of filtering of public access computers at the London Public Library. I’m aware that filtering software is already in use for computers in areas of the library where children’s services are delivered. However, I’m concerned that extending the use of filtering technology to computers used by adults may inadvertently limit access to some websites that are relevant to users who are in search of health information.

For several years I have been a member of an international team of researchers who are studying how people search for and use health information. Our work is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. I am also the lead investigator of a research project that is exploring how people living with HIV/AIDS, their family members and health care providers, exchange information about the disease in rural communities. This work is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Briefly, research about health information-seeking shows that lay people rely heavily on the Internet to look for health information. For instance, among the 90% of all North American 15-24 year olds who have ever searched online, 75% have searched for health information, almost more than any other single use. Half have looked for information about a specific disease, such as cancer or diabetes, and 44% have looked up information online about pregnancy, birth control, HIV/AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases.

Almost inevitably, looking online for health information will lead searchers to some sites that are pornographic because health-related searches are about the human body. Although content control or ‘filtering’ software is intended to block access to objectionable websites, the practice of filtering is imprecise, no matter which products are used. A major concern is whether filtering systems result in ‘overblocking’, i.e., blocking of legitimate websites because the filter incorrectly classifies them as inappropriate. Health information is particularly vulnerable to overblocking because the terms used to conduct the search refer to parts of the body and because lay searchers may not always refer to their body parts using medical terminology and may rely instead on colloquial language. Philip Start, a Professor of Statistics at the University of California at Berkeley reports that, “generally, if a filter blocks more of the sexually explicit websites, it will block more of the clean websites” (http://ice.citizenlab.org/mirror/copa-censorware-stark-report.pdf).

The public library can be a very important point of access for people in search of health information, particularly for those who do not have home computers or private access to the Internet. Because of the sensitivities often associated with health concerns, particularly those related to sexually transmitted diseases, sexual practices, and sexual orientation, people searching for information about these topics are very unlikely to look to library staff for help in locating information sources and they are also unlikely to alert staff if they find themselves blocked from accessing ‘questionnable’ websites. I respect the staff of the London Public Library and I realize that they have taken a number of steps to apply the intended software in ways that are only moderately restrictive. However, because one of the categories of material to be blocked is ‘pornography’, I remain concerned about the potential impact on legitimate users of the library. Research on internet filtering suggests that the sites most likely to be blocked by even moderate attempts to filter pornography are those concerned with sexual health and women’s health.

For these reasons, I request that Board members weigh carefully whether the public library’s role as the community’s only ‘neutral’ source of information is endangered by the censoring effects of filtering software. I appreciate that filtering is appropriate in children’s sections of the library. However, restricting access by adult users who rely on the public access computers because passersby might be uncomfortable about what appears on the screens is worrisome. I recommend that efforts be renewed to reconsider the physical arrangements of the unfiltered public access computers to reduce the likelihood that passersby will be ‘subjected’ to unpleasant images or, at the very least, that a larger number of unfiltered machines be made available and that access to these machines be made easy, in an unstigmatized fashion, and that availability to these machines not require any staff intervention.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Sincerely,
Roma Harris, Ph.D.
Professor Faculty of Information & Media Studies
The University of Western Ontario

Kudos to the Canadian Library Association and its Open Access Task Force for adopting an Open Access policy for CLA publications.

Here are main recommendatins of the report:

CLA will provide for full and immediate open access for all CLA publications, with the exception of Feliciter and monographs The embargo period for Feliciter is one issue, and the embargo policy itself will be reviewed after one year. Monographs will be considered for open access publishing on a case-by-case basis.

CLA actively encourages its members to self-archive in institutional and/or disciplinary repositories and will investigate a partnership with E-LIS, the Open Archive for Library and Information Studies.

CLA will generally provide for the author’s retention of copyright by employing Creative Commons licensing or publisher-author agreements that promote open access.

CLA will continue its long-standing policy of accessibility to virtually all CLA information except for narrowly defined confidential matters (e.g. certain personnel or legal matters).

For the full report click here.

via the CLA digest

-PC-

There’s been a lot of discussion lately in Toronto about the ROM, and not just about the opening of the controversial Libeskind designed crystal explosion on the north side (which after watching it grow and evolve through its baby to childhood to adolescent and finally adult crystal form, I am now a fan.)

The other hubbub concerns giving the public a way in while the museum bursts out of its walls. From the demise of free Fridays, and then the increase of $5 Fridays to $10 Fridays, admission prices have become less affordable. $20 for adults, $17 for students and seniors, $14(!) for children 5-14 yrs. As a student living downtown Toronto, I can assure you that I’ll be going in for the ‘free 90 minutes before closing’ deal (expanded from 60 minutes to bump up their allotment of free minutes). Like libraries, museums are civic spaces meant to inform, educate, democratize and inspire the public. So what gives?

Leah Sandals over at Spacing Wire writes in a few great pieces on both the blog and the Sunday star that discusses the museum environment, the successful plans in other cities that give free access to culture institutions, and Toronto’s plan to give away free passes through 24 selected branches at the Toronto Public Library.

TPL posted a link to the “Museum and Arts Passes” program today after officially announcing the program this morning. Twenty-four Toronto Public Library branches that fall in what the city refers to as 13 priority areas are slated to provide the passes. (It would seem that downtowners really are expected to slip in just before closing as the branches are in the burbs.) It would of course be ideal if the passes were available across the board. Or better yet, if there was a free admissions situation like the successful UK museums policy. However, it’s a good move to take a chunk out of cultural elitism by finding an audience and increasing traffic through the public library to boot.

The collaboration also includes the Art Gallery of Ontario, Bata Shoe Museum, Gardiner Museum, Royal Ontario Museum and Textile Museum of Canada. (And a corporate sponsor which I won’t mention here).

The Harper government cut significant funding to museums in the fall, but there’s not much in the media about the issue beyond a few paltry articles (see previous post) like this one that discusses how the recent influx of private funds have put cultural institutions in a tight spot in relationship to our current government. The Canadian Museums Association notes that despite targeted spending on specific projects by the feds, the MAPs cuts still need some advocacy work. No doubt this unstable funding environment makes our public institutions more susceptible to seeking sponsorship deals, and gives an entryway into our public institutions for a corporate mentality.

-PC-

Just when it seems that international intellectual property agreements are making the world a narrower place than ever to live in, some good people come along and remind governments of why the information commons might be worth protecting, after all!

A meeting of WIPO people took place June 18-20, 2007 and while participants were supposed to finalize a basic proposal for a Broadcasting Treaty, they didn’t get very far. According to James Love, Director of Knowledge Ecology International (KEI):

Technically, the subject of the Broadcasting Treaty will continue to be on the agenda of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, but with a fairly tough hurdle before it can move to a diplomatic conference — after there is agreement on the objectives, scope and object of protection, topics for which there is no agreement in sight.

Please read the short news stories below — they provide some much-needed coverage to a media issue that had little coverage prior to the collapse of the negotiations last week.

Many, many thanks are due to Manon Ress, James Love, Thiru Balasubramaniam, and other activists at Knowledge Ecology International and in the A2K movement.

-SIO

**********

Piracy collapses broadcasting treaty
By Frances Williams in Geneva
Published: June 24 2007 17:21 | Last updated: June 24 2007 17:21

…developing countries in Latin America and Asia, led by Brazil and India, have opposed the push by European and African governments for broad new rights that would protect television programmes from unauthorised retransmission for up to 50 years.

Critics say the proposed new rights would overlay existing copyrights, restrict access to programme content that is now in the public domain, prevent legitimate private copying for personal use, and stifle technological innovation.

U.N. broadcasting treaty talks suffer setback
Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:09AM EDT

Efforts to clinch a long-sought international broadcasting treaty have suffered a setback from lingering disagreements over signal piracy and the Internet, a top U.N. official said on Monday.

WIPO Broadcasting Treaty Dead…For Now
Michael Hedges - June 25, 2007

“Several country delegations began to ask deeper questions about the rationale for the treaty, and examined ways to limiting the scope and nature of the treaty,” said James Love, Director of Knowledge Ecology International, reviewing Friday’s wimpy finale. “In the end, the
broadcasters demanded too much, and made too few concessions, for the treaty to move forward. Delegates at WIPO were no longer willing to ignore issues of access to knowledge, or the control of anticompetitive practices.”

Talks on global broadcast treaty fail
By FRANK JORDANS, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jun 22, 8:27 AM ET

The treaty fell victim to disagreements over issues such as whether protection against piracy should cover only traditional broadcasting methods — meaning cable, antenna and satellite signals — or whether it should include retransmission over the Internet, he said.

European countries wanted to give broadcasters rights over any content they transmit — even if they did not originally produce the content. That type of rights-based treaty is opposed by electronics and telecommunication companies like Intel Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc., as well as librarian groups and consumer advocates. They say it would stifle technological innovation and could prevent people from playing legal music or films over their home networks.
…
The biggest loser in this episode is WIPO. Failure to bring the Broadcasting Treaty to a Diplomatic Conference reflects badly on SCCR members and very badly on WIPO General Secretary Kamil Idris. Several developed nations, the United States included, find their constituents better served within the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) treaty. Traditional media will continue to chase “free-riders” but international treaties have broad stakeholders evermore diligent in defending common sense content and distribution rights.

Yay!

Your chance to present at a conference with Drs. Toni Samek and Hope Olson! Or you can just attend the conference, too… no pressure. Please note that abstracts are due Oct. 15, 2007.

Courtesy of Dr. Elizabeth Buchanan, director of the Center for Information Policy Research, via James Pekoll.

-SIO

************
May 15-17, 2008
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Sponsored by the Center for Information Policy Research, the School of Information Studies, and the UW-Milwaukee Libraries, UW-Milwaukee

This conference will explore critical theories as grounded in and by alternative methodological perspectives and issues in intercultural information studies. Information studies as a field has become more disciplinarily, culturally, and methodologically diverse. This conference is intended to help advance the extension of traditional inquiry in this field into the important exploration of, and linkages to, such theoretical perspectives and approaches as feminism, disability studies, post-structuralism, queer studies, post-colonialism, post-modernism, semiotics, critical race theory, hermeneutics, and others is evident, as we face technological, legal, cultural, and global transformations. This conference seeks to bring together scholars from multiple disciplines, who engage in the discussion of “information” and “information studies” from alternative and critical perspectives, with a goal to promote social awareness, provide insight into inequities, and lead to progressive change in our information research and practices.

We will present work from leading scholars in information ethics and critical information studies followed by break out sessions based on open space methodology. In open space methodology, participants generate topics of interest based on keynote addresses and their own expertise. A part of the conference program is devoted to in-depth group discussions of those topics logically organized to contribute to the overall theme. Outcomes of those group discussions will be presented to the plenary and eventually form part of the conference recommendations on how to promote critical theory engagement and further research in LIS.

We are seeking abstracts of 500 words for review. Papers will be presented in 45-minute time slots, with 15 minutes of general q/a, and longer open space discussions to follow. We are particularly interested in works from women and people of color.

Abstracts due October 15, 2007
Notification by December 15, 2007

Full Papers, of 10-15 pages, due by March 1, 2008 (Authors will retain copyright, but all papers will be distributed in the conference proceedings, and archived electronically in the Center for Information Policy Research’s Occasional Papers; all subsequent publication by the author should reference the CIPR and the Thinking Critically Conference)

Submit papers to cipr@sois.uwm.edu, attention Elizabeth Buchanan, Director, CIPR

Fee: $125/$75 (students); (conference speakers will receive a 50% discount of the conference fee)
Conference Hotel: The Astor Hotel (Refer to CIPR when making reservations for appropriate rates; reservations must be made by March 1, 2008 to ensure conference rates)

Registration details forthcoming.

Keynote Speakers:
Dr. Rafael Capurro, “Hermeneutics in the Information Age,” Founder and Director, International Center of Information Ethics, Senior Information Ethics Fellow 2007-08, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, UW-Milwaukee
Dr. Hope A. Olson, “Transgressive Deconstructions: Feminist and Postcolonial Trespasses on Post-Structural Methodology,” Associate Dean and Professor, School of Information Studies, UW-Milwaukee
Dr. Fernando Elichirigoity, “Living in the Age of Globally Distributed Algorithms,” Associate Professor, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana
Dr. Toni Samek, “Action Research and Activism: Sustainable Library Interactions at the Grassroot,” Associate Professor & Graduate Coordinator School of Library & Information Studies, Faculty of Education, University of Alberta, Information Ethics Fellow, 2006-07, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, UW-Milwaukee