Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Editorial

Anonymous Library Cards An Option? 369

Posted by Zonk from the bespectacled-librarians-fight-back dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anonymous Library Cards An Option? More

Anonymous Library Cards An Option?

Comments Filter:
  • ..because the "resources" that they speak of in the link [slashdot.org] only talks about requiring fingerprints to access computers, similar to re-entering your password when you go to bid on something at ebay, just to make sure you are you. Unless im mistaken, you would have to have the balance of a PC on your card to use what you are being fingerprinted for, so why not just have cards that don't need to be fingerprinted, and those accounts can only use the paper resources of a library?
    • I think we need to clarify something here. MOST libraries are very cautious about patron privacy, and every librarian I know (including myself) thinks the Naperville library is on crack for using fingerprints to use their computers. This is probably not something that Naperville would use because, well, they're insane. But most other, non-fingerprint-requiring libraries might very well be interested. I don't imagine anyone would require you to have the balance of a PC on your card. That's just silly. :

  • It can't work (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SamBeckett ( 96685 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:41AM (#12712938)
    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 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Goronmon ( 652094 ) *
      Yeah, having to throw down $20 or so for every book I take out would just cut into the budget too much. However, I wouldn't mind seeing this as just an option to other ways to take books from a library.

    • Re:It can't work (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bobbis.u ( 703273 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:51AM (#12712997)
      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?

      • 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.

        I think the point is that this system has too many downsides to replace any current system for checking out books. No one is saying you shouldn't have to have collateral, but having to throw down cash for every book you checkout just seems to be taking it a bit far for me.
        • I don't think they were going to make it the only option. It's just a method they could use *if* a person wants to take a book out anonymously. You could probably have a regular old library card aswell for when you're not trying to read something that you don't want your name linked to.
    • Not everyone who uses a library frequently has the $$$ to plop down on a book, even temporarily.

      No one suggested using this system exclusively. Can't afford a $100-or-so deposit? Give your name!

      Or, just read the book in the library. AFAIK, that still works just fine, even with the current otherwise-not-anonymous system.

    • Re:It can't work (Score:5, Insightful)

      by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:53AM (#12713010) Homepage Journal
      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by heli0 ( 659560 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @08:02AM (#12713077)
      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 [phac-aspc.gc.ca]

      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.

      • Priorities (Score:5, Interesting)

        by TapeCutter ( 624760 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @10:22AM (#12714205) Journal
        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)?

    • Re:It can't work (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kainaw ( 676073 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @08:07AM (#12713121) Homepage Journal
      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 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by putaro ( 235078 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @08:24AM (#12713236) Journal
        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.
      • You would have to be EXCEPTIONALLY poor to not afford a $20 refundable deposit. And you can always sit in the library and read/listen/watch (at least in most places) and pay nothing.

        If $20 makes the difference between whether you get a book or food for a few days, you probably have bigger problems to tackle and not terribly interested in libraries. I just can't see anyone with even the most menial below-minimum-wage job and a place to sleep that doesn't have "SEARS" on the side not being able to scrape up

      • I can't learn my history... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by aug24 ( 38229 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @08:47AM (#12713395) Homepage
        ...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.

      • 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.

        That's not an insignificant issue. Of course, not a damn person here has mentioned that the poor are also the least likely people to have and ID card in the first place. There are lots of states in which an ID card is $20 and over.

        On a side note, my Ohio has a law (4507.52)
    • Because A) Not everyone who uses a library frequently has the $$$

      If you'd rtfa, you would notice that this was suggested as an ALTERNATIVE to ID-style library cards; useful for visitors as well as tin-foil-hat wearers. Most users would probably stick with the free ID-based cards.

    • And C) Libraries have out of print books. Foundation and Earth by Isaac Asimov (the chronological end of the Foundation series) was out of print for years following his death. For some reason, hard cover supplies ran out and a paperback form was not introduced for several years -- the two prequels (written later) were available in paperback long before it. I think it went back into print a few years ago.

      I lusted for this book for most of my teenage years (yes, I was warped). Were I the rational, self-maxi

    • Not only that, but C) how long before your local library becomes like Blockbuster, requiring a credit card to check out a book, charging you ridiculous late fees when appropriate, calling you and asking where their books are. I just don't think this is a path we want to start down with the public library system. Fingerprints may be a little ridiculous, but getting money involved in the system doesn't seem like a good way around it.

  • Who will pay for this? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PortWineBoy ( 587071 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:42AM (#12712943)
    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? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:54AM (#12713019) Homepage Journal
      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 [wikipedia.org] 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? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by makohund ( 10086 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @12:45PM (#12715928)

        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

    • What about in Deming, Washington [librarylaw.com], where the FBI issued a subpoena for a library to release the names of all people who checked out a biography of Osama bin Laden? (There are reasons for the subpoena - read the story if you aren't familiar with it, but still...)

      This is not an isolated case. There have been numerous cases where the local, state, or federal go vernment has asked for such information.

      I'm not saying this is a valid solution. (Nor am I saying it's an unreasonable solution.) I think the librar

    • Actually, it'll be fairly easy to implement in the software, since upcoming releases of library management software will support this.

      If a library already has cash cards for their copiers and/or printers, it's even easier to do this.

      Ben Ostrowsky
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Who will pay for this? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Thunderstruck ( 210399 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @08:44AM (#12713372)
      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?

  • 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. 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 participating in a anonymous library card program, the situation that I find abhorrent might continue longer than it would under the current system
    • 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.

      So, you think that by refusing to participate in their privacy intrusions, you'd be saying it's right to intrude on privacy?

      Say, how's the weather on bizarro world these days? Enjoying it there, are you?
    • i don't know what you are smoking, creating and participating in an anonymous system is the exact thing that will break the current climate that you find "abhorrent"

      if there is a lot of interest and participation in the new program then it will send a message that we don't like having everything we read looked over with a fine toothed comb. if you want the laws to change you need to express your dislike for the current laws, or no one will get the message and think everything is fine.

      this anonymous check
    • Until you make a stink about somthing, most of the sheeple wont care. This is about poking The Man to see if he reacts. The current political climate is to try and trump anonymity at every position. Most of the time it doesn't matter, so most people figure that it wont affect them.

      The hope is that the government will squash this idea, resulting in some privacy "buzz" in the media. Somehting to counteract the stop-terrorism-by-burning-the-constitution "buzz" which has dominated the discussion so far.

    • Re:Not a good idea in the long run (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @08:06AM (#12713117) Homepage
      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.

      • Well, sometimes librarians are the only ones fighting for you to keep having some of these rights

        And sometimes they're the ones turning you in. A 2003 Slate article claimed that the Feds had received over 50 tips from librarians who reported suspicious activity. This image of courageous librarians standing up to The Man is mostly nonsense. Most of them are concerned members of their communities, and not at all interested in the ACLU-fantasized rights of people to check out "Dummies Guide to Pipe Bomb

        • Most of them are concerned members of their communities, and not at all interested in the ACLU-fantasized rights of people to check out "Dummies Guide to Pipe Bombs".

          ACLU-fantasized????

          How about Supreme Court established. There is no provision in the Constitution to abridge the rights spelled out therein because you want to. That's what MCarthy tried to do, and the climate at the time allowed him to get pretty far with it.

          The consequences of the first and fourth ammendments is that you have a rock so

  • Only $20? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Marii ( 716741 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:45AM (#12712960) Journal
    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.

    • Re:Only $20? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Eivind ( 15695 )
      If you read the article you would've noticed that offcourse with such a system they'd only allow you to borrow stuff with a total value smaller than your deposit.

      In other words, if you want to check out 5 hardcovers at a time, you're going to have to deposit more than $20.

    • You (or, rather, your card) should build credit with the library for each item returned in the same condition as when you borrowed it, not to surpass, say 100%, maybe 200%.
    • I would only think this would work if the deposit was much higher.. but of course then no one would use it.

      Elite Level: For a fee large enough that only rich people (and well-funded cells) will pay it, you can have a library card not traceable to you (until you show up to use it again).

      Comrade Level: For free-as-in-police-state, you can have a library card that logs every transaction you make. (Future upgrades will upload the logs directly to DCS1000.)

      The surveillance situation in this country is jus
    • Your logic is seriously flawed. $20 was an example, not "the price". If you want to take out $20 worth of books, you buy a $20 card. If you want to take out $100 worth of books, you buy a $100 card. The poorer people would have the choice of either using standard identiy cards or just spending a smaller amount of money and getting one book at a time. And the smarter people would probably use both. Use my Driver's License for the book about general american history, and the $23.50 card I purchased to

  • I signed up at my local the other day, because I had to to use their Internet access, even though I didn't want to borrow books.

    Presumably this is a reference for them in case you do something naughty online, which wouldn't still be required under the anonymous borrowing.

    Your standard Internet cafe doesn't need ID, so are libraries really as "privacy concious" as the summary makes out?

    __
    Laugh Daily free funny videos [laughdaily.com]

    • Your standard Internet cafe also doesn't operate at taxpayer expense, so they don't particularly care if you h4x0r the m4tr|>< from their computers. All they want is your cold, hard, plastic.

      Libraries, by contrast, have to satisfy the city council, state legislature, and federal funding sources that their computers are not being used to commit illegal acts (not that they can't be, just that they aren't). So they have to keep stricter control over the publicly-funded infrastructure to keep the vari

    • Re:Internet Access (Score:3, Insightful)

      by aborchers ( 471342 )
      Librarians as a profession (http://ala.org/ [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.

  • Library != Bookstore (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pjwhite ( 18503 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:46AM (#12712966) Homepage
    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.
    • I think you misunderstand the example given.

      The idea is that you put down a deposit equal to or greater than the value of the item you are borrowing.

      Sure, you could lose your $15 and run off with the library's copy of The Terror State, but you could just as easily buy yourself a brand new copy (which has never had anyone else's grubby little fingers or coffee stains on it) for less than $15 at Amazon [amazon.com]. If you do run off with the library's copy, they can order a new one with the money you gave them.
    • Dropping $15 (or whatever) for a book is no big deal for some people and they will feel no obligation to return the book.

      I fail to see the problem... If libraries can make money by people keeping books, that just means less money the public needs to spend to fund them.

      Not that I don't fully support public funding for libraries... Hell, I consider them one of the few good uses for my tax dollars. But if they can reduce their dependence on public funding without reducing the services they provide, well,

  • reason for them to check you out (Score:3, Insightful)

    by krunk4ever ( 856261 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:50AM (#12712987) Homepage
    i have an interesting story regarding my friend's incident at the airport security. at the security checkpoint, my friend was about to walk through the metal detector. he had on white sneakers, which usually aren't required to be taken off.

    the metal detector guard asked if my friend wanted to take off his shoes. he didn't request it, just asked if he wanted to. my friend, being lazy, of course said he'd rather just walk through. the moment he expressed this, he was asked for follow the guard and they went into one of those corners and he closed the drapes around him and did a full body search (no cavity search though).

    either way, by saying you want an anonymous card is similar to this situation, where you have the option to, but you'll be more suspicious for them to check you out, probably finding stuff about you that they wouldn't have else known.
    • How is this "Insightful?" The point of the post is to provide a COMPLETELY anonymous method of checking out books from a library. So, yes wanting privacy these days means that you are a suspect, but if they don't know who you are then what does it matter? The librarians are not going to keep track of you by sight.
      • ...a COMPLETELY anonymous method of checking out books ...

        Buy them for cash. In a city far from where you live.

        (No matter how anonymous the card is, when you return to check out more books later, they can be waiting.)

        • (No matter how anonymous the card is, when you return to check out more books later, they can be waiting.)

          Well, they could try to get you returning the books, since that would be a positive link between you and whatever "suspicious" book triggered this response.
          But they'd have to camp out on every branch library 24 hours a day (since I can return a book to any branch either at the counter or using the night book drop).

          Otherwise the most information they could get from pulling the library's records would

    • Re:reason for them to check you out (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dwpro ( 520418 ) <.dgeller777. .at. .gmail.com.> on Friday June 03, 2005 @08:20AM (#12713210)
      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.

  • 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.

    As anyone who uses their public library can attest, missing items are a common search result. Yet, recovery suits brought by the libraries seem rare. (Litigation may not be in their hearts.)

    This escrow approach not only appeals to one's vengeful dark side, but also smacks of fiscal responsibility. Moreover, posting the actual replacement cost

  • what about Catcher in the Rye [google.com]? The NSA has statistical GPS-linked tracking systems for that one, you know.

    Now where's my hat? I have to go outside, and you can never be too safe.

  • The bad thing.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The bad thing about this, which the article already discusses, is that this type of card is more useful to those with disposable income; i.e. the poor will not be able to use this service. The author of the article also overstates their case a bit:

    In fact, a homeless person who might otherwise be unable to get a library card could place requests on popular items with a $1 card and then use them within the library when his or her turn comes. So poor people would be no worse off in a library that offers an

  • Privacy First (Score:5, Informative)

    by JJ ( 29711 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:56AM (#12713033) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • When there is a financial crunch, its often the new material acquistions that are cut. (I usually prefer the "new" shelves and notice this.) Anomyomity could make theft easier.
    On the other hand they could institute a stricter "one-strike" policy for anonymous cards. That one be a single overdue or fine temporarily disables the card. Currently, libraries are little more generous than this because it cuts administrative costs and soothes customers.
  • How I thought of it was, you went into a library and gave them an amount equal to twice the retail price of whatever book you wanted to borrow. If you brought it back by the due date, you got all your money back; if you brought it back late they deducted the fine. If you brought it back damaged they deducted it from the deposit.

    The book would include the receipt for the deposit, and whoever brought the book back got the refund. As the article noted, you substitute anonymous cash for identity, and you ha

    • Well then go volunteer at your local library and implement it. And take over all the extra work it will require. It's easy to think of these "brilliant" plans, but not so easy to implement them yourself. Of course it's even easier to give someone you don't know(who may very well be a volunteer) a lot more work.
  • You've seen anonymous cash cards already; you may even have received them before. They're better known as gift cards

    They're also known as cash, money, coins, etc and predate magnetic stripes on pieces of platic by thousands of years. And they aren't subject to expiration dates and can be used at any retailer.

  • DHS want's to check which person read "The Terror State" or "The Nuclear Bombs Howto":

    1) Check when book was lent
    2) Check which account was charged
    3) check when book was checked in again
    4) check which account is changed.

    It's only some SQL statements and then you have an account/number/name/person.

    In the USA there is NO anonymous reading/living/driving/renting anywhere because terrorist are everywhere! (and to protect the children!)

    The USA are not any more "The Land of The Free".

  • Some reasons I do not like this (Score:4, Informative)

    by mzs ( 595629 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @08:13AM (#12713159)
    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.
    • Sadly, the American Library Association was powerful enough to get 48 states to ban all libraries from turning over circulation to anyone without a subpoena, but will never be powerful enough to keep these provisions in the PATRIOT Act from being renewed indefinitely.

      Fortunately, no reputable library software links checked out materials to the patrons who checked them out once the materials are returned, and you can't force a library to reveal information they don't have. Of course, it probably won't be l

    • For most people this isn't needed. For those who considers it a valuable alternative, the extra cost may not be something they consider a hindrance.

      The problem with changing laws to prevent data from being handed over is that there's nothing preventing laws like that from being changed right back, and unless data being collected in the meantime immediately gets deleted, that's exactly the kind of situation you'd want to avoid - imagine another 9/11 style attack and a government reacting in panic forcing t

  • Out of Print (Score:2, Insightful)

    by revtom ( 579849 )
    Let's say libraries had the resources to implement this. There is no replacing an out-of-print book, even if it originally cost less that the deposit amount.
    • How is this different from lending with regular ID? If you borrow an irreplaceable item and lose it, you'll be charged something (maybe $50), but the library won't get the item back.

  • So... how much to not scan my luggage? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bud ( 1705 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @08:27AM (#12713249)

    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.

    Borrowing The Terror State from your local library: $20

    Parking your car anywhere: $50

    Fast lane at the airport, bypassing extra security checks: $100k

    Bypassing all important security checks: $10m

    Bypassing all security checks and paying for it with American oil money: priceless.

    --Bud

  • thats not how it works here. We already paid for the book via taxes. There is no 'rental fee' when you check out books.

    There is a fine if you bring it back late of course.. That could be deducted from the card.

    But turning a library into a book rental shop isnt a good idea at all. would be bad for both tax payers and the low income types..
  • .. for good, all we need to do is peer-to-peer distributed solution?
    A card that can hold unique id and your public/private key pair and a ubiquos cheap device everywhere allowing to "mate" any two cards and sign (transfer bit of trust) from one card to another?
    Plus a Congress mandate NOT to store any identifiable info next the the card number and just permitting storing trust relationships?
    Seems an ID card like that will satisfy needs of anyone: contr-terrorism agencies (person buying the plane ticket wi
  • But how much should the deposit be on a cheap but out-of print book, to avoid the library becoming effectively a used book shop with a really nice selection?

    Sure, you can abuse the old system like that too (just pay the fine and keep the book), but the psychology of it is sure to be more tempting when they have no way of finding you (even if they proabably wouldn't bother in any case).
  • We need Netflix for books. I'd use it. Heck, I'd probably buy (keep) a lot of them.
  • A bookstore with the most flexible return policy ever! I'm in!

    ~D

  • Has anyone actually read the USA PATIOT Act? (Score:3, Informative)

    by vortex2.71 ( 802986 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @10:33AM (#12714289)
    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."

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close