Could the web 2.0 be the beginning of the end of privacy in public libraries?

     Web 2.0… Web 2.0… Web 2.0… This seems to be the battle cry for libraries in recent years. The view being that, in order for libraries to compete in our ever more wired up world, they have to provide services in a similar manner to Amazon, Google, and the like. To be honest, they me be right on this. The problem is that the internet is a very public and open domain. Any information that goes out over the lines through ISPs becomes, by default, outside the control of library.

     This is not really a problem if patrons are using library computers to use social networking sites, like Facebook. Patrons sharing info is the name of the game. However, reference librarians searching for information for a patron that involves sensitive information are also recorded by ISPs and many corporate web servers. Companies can, and many times do, sell and/or trade information collected electronically about users/customers. Even if they don’t, there is still a record of the transaction, often in several places, out there.

     However, there appears to be no government policies in place that would, at least in any meaningful way, protect library users, let alone internet users in general. The advancement of the internet, and its accompanying technologies, has vastly outpaced the capacities of any governing body to develop effective policies. To make matters worse, if the PATRIOT Act is anything to go by, the Federal Government does not seem particularly worried about privacy. Also consider that the government has implemented, or is looking to implement, electronic surveillance. So, as it stands currently, library users will continue to be caught between the interests of money and national security.

     It is in this privacy hostile environment that public libraries are increasingly beholden to. In the past, due to the local and physical nature of library material, privacy was a laudable goal that was much easier to attain. In this day and age, however, without some sort of effective policies in place, privacy may prove to be a moot point soon. Is the web a good new home for libraries?

(This is the introduction to a small series on library and government internet policy, or the lack there of.)

Video: FCC Chairman talks Open Internet

The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski introduces the new FCC run site, http://OpenInternet.gov, concerning their proposed changes to Federal Regulations for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and their stance on "Open Internet". This video is an addendum to this post.



What do you think about these proposed changes by the FCC? Will they provide more access or will they actually restrict access?

Some Internets are more equal than others, Or not.: Net Neutrality and its impact on Information Access

One of the great things about the Internet, as opposed to many other forms of communication, is that everyone's voice is supposedly equal. There is a vast difference between protesting in front of your town hall and erecting a protest blog, for example. When you protest in front of your town hall (legally) you need a permit, you're only going to be out there until it gets dark, you need to arrange a time that all of your buddies can show up with signs, you need to MAKE signs, if it rains you're probably going to leave early, and the only people who are going to be around the Town Hall during that short period are going to see your protest. If you set up a blog, espousing your frustration for the level of fluoride in the Municipal Water System your blog is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to everyone who has access to the Internet (provided their firewall doesn't determine you to be a menace) which can potentially be everyone in your town. The Internet can be a great equalizer in this way.

As great as this sounds, the truth of the matter is not all websites are treated in an equal manner. The impact of Advertising and Online Searching programming aside, the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) of individual websites can affect the availability of certain sites. If a website is eating up lots of bandwidth due to high traffic, lots of media uploads and other applications the ISPs can charge the user more, slow the download time of sites or block the offending applications on the site. This can severely damage access to information on sites run by people who can't afford a sudden price hike, particularly Libraries, non-profit organizations and educational centers with pitiful IT budgets.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed on Monday (September 21, 2009) that they are going to start looking into more regulations on ISPs that will insure that they treat all web traffic equally. The so-called "net neutrality" proposal is supported by web application providers (like Google, Craigslist and Microsoft) who feel that their content is being unfairly blocked by ISPs because they use too much bandwidth.

As it is, there are few standards to determine which applications are menaces that the ISPs should be blocking. In the void of these standards the ISPs decided which apps were blocked, this included companies blocking Internet applications that compete with a service they provide such as Internet Voice calls. You can see where a conflict of business interests could impede with the access of information and services.

The FCC proposed that they will add two new rules to their "Four Freedoms" principals. The original Four Freedoms are as follows:

1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
   
   
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
   
   
3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
   
   
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
   
   
   Monday's additions:
   
   
5. Broadband providers cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, favor certain content or applications over others and cannot "disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider."
   
   
6. Broadband providers must be transparent about the service they are providing and how they are running their networks.
   
   (Via PC World)
   

The intent of the FCC is to prevent ISPs from favoring certain application creators that use less bandwidth or don't provide competing services. They also want to be sure that ISPs cannot suddenly hike their prices to their customers when they use lots of bandwidth without fully explaining their price scale and their practices. The goal, according to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is to, "safeguard the free and open Internet." (PC World)

Will these new rules do just that? Its hard to say. Dylan F. Tweney of Wired.net argues that the regulations will actually limit access instead of expanding it. He states that with these regulations, ISPs could no longer offer "all-you-can-eat, flat-rate Internet access" and would rather need to set pay-per bandwidth for all of their customers. This would mean that some entities who were saving money by getting the unlimited access package would have to pay for a higher priced, higher bandwidth service to accommodate their needs. While the FCC regulations would force the ISPs to be upfront about how much they will charge for what level of service, the prices will most likely go up. Milton Freedman must be spinning in his grave at these developments.

So is greater Internet freedom worth the inevitable price hike for access? It can be argued both ways. While the freedom is greater for those who can afford it, those who can't afford the increase in price will be limited. Someone who can't afford 100 dollars a month for high bandwidth use may have to use a lower bandwidth service, which will limit which sites they can visit and what information they can view. How about organizations that provide Internet Access to the public, like Public Libraries? Will they be able to afford all of the bandwidth that their thousands of patrons use every month? With Library budgets ever shrinking something may have to give, which will limit both the information Libraries can host and the access to information to patrons who can't afford either a computer or even the cheapest Internet service.

Because of these issues, the FCC and other government entities should keep Libraries and other Non-Profit Organizations in mind when developing these regulations. If their intentions are noble, they should keep in mind what Free and Open Internet really means as an ability to access information.

"The Last Library" or the Double Edged Sword of Google Books

I will be the first to admit that I am an unabashed Google fangirl. I swoon over Google Docs. I drool when I think about Gmail applications. I receive terrified restraining orders from the people developing Google Wave. In other words, I love Google.

However, like in many relationships, I have to wonder if my love for Google is blinding me to some questionable behavior. You may have heard about Google Books, the Google Application that aims to create a "digital catalog" of the world's books, to be available for public access online. Google Books is currently in the middle of a settlement with authors and publishers regarding their ability to digitize books that are NOT in the public domain.

If Google wins their settlement they could possibly have access to, "50 percent to 70 percent of all books published since 1923." (CNET News) It would be a groundbreaking and precedent setting case for the future of Digital Libraries and Intellectual Property rights, not only in the US but Globally.

On the face of things Google Books sounds great! A public library that is available to anyone around the world (with internet access)! Knowledge that was once restrained within the physical boundaries of a book can now be accessed by everyone at the same time! What more could you possibly need? Well, actually lots of things.

On October 31, 2009 Geoffrey Nunberg wrote about the possible impact of the Google Books Digitization project in the Chronicle of Higher Education. He makes the prediction that Google Books will be the "last library" due to the fact that Google has a:

"...five-year head start and its relationships with libraries and publishers give it an effective monopoly: No competitor will be able to come after it on the same scale." (Nunberg)

Let's face it, while Google makes a claim for noble intentions: organizing the world's information and making it accessible to everyone, they are still a business. Even I, a very naive lover of Google, am suspicious of it becoming the Wal-Mart of Knowledge.

I WANT to believe in the Google Corporate Mission statement that, "You can make money without doing evil." Oh God, how I want to believe it, but even if Google does keep to its word and remains un-evil I am not comfortable settling for a benevolent dictator.

So on one hand, I admire the intent behind the Google Books project. I too believe that knowledge should be accessible to everyone regardless of socio-economic status or physical disability. Using the internet to do this is a very efficient, quick and cost effective way of going about it. Once you digitize a book, you don't have to do it again. Multiple people can "check out" a digital book while in the physical realm there are only so many printed resources to go around. What librarian WOULDN'T want this??

However you have to look at this situation within the context of real life. If Google becomes the "last library" what will happen to folks without internet access? Even if everyone suddenly has internet access who is to say that Future staff turnover in Google doesn't change their corporate motto from "Do no Evil" to "MONEY MONEY MONEY"? Then the world's knowledge would only be available for whatever price Google decides is fair because we believed that they should be the only caretakers of it.

Evidence also shows that not only is Google trying to organize and digitize the world's knowledge but they aren't going a very good job at it! Norman Oder in the Library journal points out the many THOUSANDS of mistakes that Google makes with their metadata designs. Google actually corrected the critics and stated that they actually have made MILLIONS of mistakes with the metadata. Jon Orwant, the manager of Google Books stated that:

"We have collected over a trillion individual metadata fields; when we use our computing grid to shake them around and decide which books exist in the world, we make billions of decisions and commit millions of mistakes." (Oder)

Library Science is a little more complicated then the Engineers thought. This is what happens when you try to digitally recreate a process in 5 years that has been in progress for over a thousand!

The main problem of course is if Google becomes the "last library", the Librarians will be replaced with Engineers who keep making millions of mistakes in the metadata. The only alternative will be to breed special hybrid Engineer Librarians (the nerdiest species of humanoid alive) who can handle this particular brand of librarianship. Like Google, we will also hope that these cyborg librarians won't turn against us and try to take over the world but of course, they will.

Speculations aside, these kinds of scenarios are the vary ones that we should be thinking about. When considering such important issues as Information Access, we can't afford to hope for the best and try not to think about the worst that could happen. As much as I care for Google, I will have to seriously think about our relationship if Google tries to control my life (more than I let them already) and the world's information.

When pigeons fly faster than broadband

SA Pigeon Faster Than Broadband

Telkom, one of South Africa's largest internet providers, will now have to compete with carrier pigeons. The Unlimited Group conducted an experiment where they attached an encrypted data stick to a carrier pigeon and simultaneously started a download of 4GB. The pigeon flew 50 miles which took it 1 hour and 8 minutes in comparison to the Internet download which took 6 hours. The issue that becomes important here, is not only the quality of the internet service but the fact that South Africans pay the highest price for internet service and it ends up being the least reliable. Internet access has been growing at a slower rate over the past few years. Currently 1 of every 15 people has access to the internet in South Africa. People's access to information directly impacts their socioeconomic status: opportunities, power, educational advancement, inter-connectivity, etc. We live in a global society, and it is through internet access that people are able to engage in that society. I don't believe that it is any coincidence that here in Detroit we have a huge technology gap and that there is a large disparity between suburban and urban dwellers and there is probably a very similar comparison in South Africa.

(More to come in the future).