This week’s readings focused on technological protection measures and the implications they have on libraries, patrons, and a dabble of information ethics/policy. Having just finished the last reading about the socio-technical construction of who is allowed use in our digital information environment, it is interesting to think back to the beginning of the semester and how copyright really stole the limelight, warning us against letting it dominate information policy. Yet here, this week we see that both social values and business also very closely affect information policy, illustrating in real time the danger of letting any one entity control something that affects diverse users in varied situations.
Reflecting on what Eschenfelder (2008) discussed, libraries do need to pay more attention to the soft restrictions that are just bundled up in the licenses they sign. I think after reading the Harris (2009) book, I came away thinking that the most important point in licensing materials was to make sure that the vendors or publishers 1) didn’t make any outrageous restrictions on materials, 2) didn’t place any requirements for trafficking patron use, and 3) were actually able to license the material. Having not been involved in any licensing of materials whatsoever, I cannot speak directly to the notions may or may not exist. However, I will say that going into a position of licensing materials, I would probably subscribe to the assumptions that soft user restrictions are status quo that Eschenfelder (2008) describes as all too prevalent in our current professional environment.
But after reading the Eschenfelder (2010) article, I started asking myself what is it that is keeps libraries from picking up the new technologies to use in controlling their collections? I think there’s a good possibility that the new technologies would help streamline their collections more in the long run, rather than as with the example of watermarking interfering with legitimate use it would instead keep protections there but without obstruction of the resource. However, maybe it’s a side effect of those long-held assumptions I discussed earlier, where librarians are not picking up the new technologies because they aren’t part of the expected use restrictions, and therefore imply greater restriction and control of access to the resources. Rather than being better for their end users, organizers of cultural institutions in the U.S. may be viewing the new technologies as the Big Bad Wolf, a terror in disguise. When really, the old stuff is what’s making their collections difficult to use.
With that being said, I wouldn’t exactly place money on this discussion, not yet at least. Why? A) I haven’t thought it through enough, and B) because I myself am victim of fearing the newer tools for controlling use and access to resources. If I were a librarian controlling access to my materials, I would stick with what I know best because it’s what’s safe and what works (and what we think still works), so – as I told my dad last winter when he suggested I trade in my dearly beloved ’91 Lumina, Sporty, for a newer vehicle – why fix it if it ain’t broke?
(And, as a total aside, I’m glad I didn’t get a newer car last year, seeing as Mother Nature just totaled Sporty a month ago with a nasty September hailstorm…yep.)
Taking a turn in my stream of consciousness... Millman (2003) writes, “Authorization may be considered an implementation of policy, and an important goal of authorization systems is flexibility, accuracy, and efficiency in implementing policies.” Now, I’m not sure what policies they’re talking about here, but I think it’s maybe the policy that says who can access what to whatever extent. I experience this each week between what I’m authorized to do and view in the library as a student vs. what I can access at different levels of staff between my different jobs. Authorization is a complex process, especially with people – like me – who have multiple roles within a single institution, where the Role-Based Access Control system that Millman (2003) describes is used.
As far as authorization and authentication go, my immediate thought was that I do enough authenticating these days as anyone ever should have to, especially at UW it seems they have a greater security concern than other things like Gmail. Logging into my three different email accounts, two blogging accounts, a social network profile, online accounts for banking and shopping, a distance learning portal for my online classes, and multiple work terminals (each with their own passwords), I don’t know how we as human beings do it, remember which identity we chose for which program/website/account/etc. I foresee a new age of digital information superheroes, with PasswordMan (see picture above) leading their forces in the fight against cybercrime.
Image credit: Wikimedia by Thibault fr
No comments:
Post a Comment