Blog #5 Is there a law in sight?

Throughout this class we have discussed the importance of educating the public about using the internet both safely and effectively. The fact that there is no legal requirement for internet agencies to educate their users about privacy. There may however, be a law in the future that requires just that. Lawmakers are introducing an internet privacy bill that would force companies to have an "opt-out" option for the use of "covered" information and an "opt-in" option for the use of "sensitive" information. "Covered" information is your name, address, phone number, email, any government issued identification number (SS#, driver's license number, passport number, etc), biometric data, bank account numbers and passwords, or other numbers that assist companies with computer use identity. "Sensitive" information is qualified as medical records, race, religion, sexual orientation, financial records, or user's geographical location. The above lists and more information can be found at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/religion-sex-money-location-bill-makes-them-sensitive-info.ars

Some feel that these changes would decrease business for some small companies causing them to close while others feel this is a way to assist the public in protecting their information. I personally like the "opt-in" idea. This allows each individual to make a choice in the beginning about their level of privacy. Only having an "opt-out" option seems to leave more gray area for users and companies to disagree about.

Will this bill cause some of the small companies to go under? Who is more important small business or the internet user? Could this be a step in the right direction concerning privacy and internet use or is the government putting its nose in where is shouldn't be?

Blog #4 WiFi and Privacy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37643844/ns/technology_and_science-security/


Have you ever thought about how Google gets all of the wonderful images they use for Google Maps and direction information with the very helpful “Street View”? What other types of information are they gathering when they get those images?

Google is now saying that more information that the images is gathered! “Google now confesses it has been collecting people's information for years, yet claims they still do not know exactly what they collected and who was vulnerable”. Information like email fragments, search requests, and other internet actions that are not encrypted are being gathered by Google. They say the information is only being seen by two people – one who created the software and one who tested it. Ok, why was it gathered in the first place? And where is the information now? Is this acceptable considering the public’s first amendment rights?

So what about WiFi in public places like libraries or internet cafes? Are there rules for the collection of information via those internet connections? The above articles is dealing with Google taking information from people’s residents and government officials are dealing with this seriously. So will these decisions protect people using WiFi in public areas? What about WiFi that is being partially paid for by the government because of the E-Rate Program? CIPA requires libraries to use filter software if they are purchasing internet access through the E-Rate Program and it is not violating patron’s first amendment rights. So where does the line get drawn? What is in violation and what is not when it comes to using WiFi in public places?

Blog #3 Legal Notices via Facebook?

An Australian judge ruled it acceptable to serve legal notices to citizens via Facebook. The man was contacted through many avenues to take a paternity test. Contact was attempted by mail to his residence, to his parent’s residence, and even through his current girlfriend, but no success was made in contacting him. The counsel learned that he frequently used Facebook and MySpace accounts, so those were the next logical step in contacting him. The man was an avid user of these social networking sites until he received the paternity notices. Upon receiving the paternity notices, he canceled both accounts. The judge stated, “the case was unusual but ‘demonstrative of social movements and the currency of the times’".

Times are changing and the use of these social sites is more common that receiving letters in the mail. I check my email and social networking accounts multiple times a day. I know some people are logged on to their accounts 24 hours each day! This type of communication is the quickest and sometimes easiest way to reach people these days.

So, can a library use social networking sites to contact patrons about overdue books or fines? Is this an appropriate use of social networking sites? If the government can use them to contact people about legal matters, I feel this would be a great method for contacting patrons about issues within the library.

Blog #2 Censorship or Safety?

Street-Porter, Janet. "Anti-social truth about these social networkers. " Daily Mail 8 Mar. 2010, ProQuest Newsstand, ProQuest. Web. 27 May. 2010.
http://proquest.umi.com.proxy.ulib.iupui.edu/pqdweb?index=3&did=1977964231&SrchMode=1&sid=5&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1275010485&clientId=13225


We all know how popular social networking sites, like Facebook, are for young adults in the United States. British youth are just as interested, but internet bullying is becoming an issue that Britain wants to get under control. The big question is where is the line between safety and censorship?

The Daily Mail in Britain discusses the negative aspects of Facebook on their youth. Many instances of teen suicide have been linked to bullying over the internet. Gangs have been known to post threats to other gangs with graphic pictures of artillery. Britain is also worried about the relationship between students and teachers because of the postings of some students, as well as, other ‘perfectly innocent” people being labeled without knowing on social networking sites.

The US has experienced many of the above situations, therefore is in the same predicament as Britain.

So what is the answer? In Italy, Google employees were punished for allowing a video showing bullying to remain viewable for over two months. Google employees believe the punishment of the employees in Italy “poses a grave threat to the freedom of internet users”.

Are Google or other internet employees responsible for what others post? Would removing posts be censorship if it was a video of bullying among children or other law breaking acts? Are internet employees required to report this type of information to officials?

I think I have more questions now than I did before reading this article…

Blog #1 One Case on Censorship

"Intellectual freedom can exist only where two essential conditions are met: first, that all individuals have the right to hold any belief on any subject and to convey their ideas in any form they deem appropriate, and second, that society makes an equal commitment to the right of unrestricted access to information and ideas regardless of the communication medium used, the content of work, and the viewpoints of both the author and the receiver of information."

Intellectual Freedom Manual, 7th edition

This is a topic that has been observed for many, many years. I began looking how intellectual freedom and censorship has occurred in the past and how the issues were handled. I found many interesting articles, but on that caught my attention first was “The Day Obscenity Became Art” by Fred Kaplan in the online version of the New York Times Opinion section. In 1873 Congress outlawed obscenity, which was defined as “works that ‘community standards’ would regard as ‘lustful,’ ‘lewd,’ ‘lascivious’ or ‘prurient.’” Then in 1959 a law suit was filed by a book publisher against the US Postal Service because it was confiscating copies of the novel “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” by DH Lawrence because it was considered “obscene”. Through the court case, both attorneys dissected the First Amendment in order to promote their cases. In the end, it was determined that the First Amendment protected writers and publishers and did not give the US Postal Service the right to confiscate material because of obscenity. This is just one example of how intellectual freedom and censorship is much broader than picking up a book at the library – have you ever thought of how that book got to the library?

The mail…Thank you Barney Rosset from Grove Press for standing up against censorship!!!