Deborah Caldewell-Stone’s “RFID in Libraries” was the most interesting article for me simply because I have never heard of RFID technology before, and the privacy issues it presents to libraries are intriguing. Although she discussed many issues related to RFID technology, threats to patrons’ privacy captured my attention the most. First, she states that some activist groups claim that RFID technology betrays more patron information than the current library system does (Stone 39-40). If an RFID tag is only supposed to hold information regarding an item however, (ISBN, shelf location, etc.) how can personal patron information be accessed? Second, Stone raises the concern that any RFID tag can be read by any RFID reader in range; the RFID tag on a library item could potentially act as a tracking device on both the patron and the materials he/she is using (Stone 40). Although this concern gives pause, it still raises questions as to its validity. First, if RFID technology is going to be widely applied, and RFID readers become common in most public places, wouldn’t RFID signals from library items, retail items, etc., often overlap and become confused? Also, with such a short signal, the presence of an RFID reader close to a tagged item does not guarantee that the item will be read by the reader. It doesn’t seem that a person’s whereabouts could be easily or efficiently tracked through a short-range RFID tag. While there are some potential privacy issues involved with RFID technology, I think that if the guidelines put forth by ALA and other groups are followed, RFID technology can be regulated in libraries so that it doesn’t become a problem.
“Across the Digital Divide”
The other issues I found most interesting in today’s readings were those presented by e-books and the perspective offered on them and other electronic formats in Seanan McGuire’s blog post “Across the Digital Divide.” In her post, McGuire urges readers to remember that access to technology is a privilege not everyone has, and reminds readers of the importance of print formats due to their economy. McGuire presents a cogent argument for the survival of print formats. First, her argument is the first valid one I have heard for retaining print formats far into the future. Other articles I have read assert that print will survive “just because” without giving a really good reason for it doing so. Second, her perspective is a reminder to libraries and other public institutions that they exist in order to serve and provide access to information for the entire public. Librarians often worry about providing convenient access to library materials through individuals’ phones, tablets, and other mobile devices. Such concerns are valid, but it’s important to remember how the other half lives and that those individuals have information needs as well.
“Examining the Role of Libraries in an E-book World”
Molly Joss’ “Examining the Role of Libraries in an E-book World” also discusses issues related to e-books in the library context, and raised the issue of Harper-Collins’ e-book policy. I have read about this policy before, and like many librarians, strongly disagree with it. I was somewhat shocked therefore to read Joss’ assertion that publishers can support public libraries by making “e-book lending policies mirror those of printed books” (Joss 15) after she appeared to take the stance of most librarians on this issue. Based on my previous readings, it is my understanding that Harper-Collins used that very criterion to formulate their e-book policy. They calculated that print materials circulate about 26 times before they needed to be replaced. However, electronic materials are different because unlike print materials they don’t wear out after being circulated a certain number of times. It was because Harper-Collins tried to apply the principles of print materials to electronic materials that it has come head-to-head with librarians.
"The Next Generation Library Catalogue” and “The Koha Saga”
The final two readings, Sharon Yang’s and Melissa Hoffman’s study “The Next Generation Library Catalogue” and Moody’s “The Koha Saga” were informative regarding the future of online library catalogues. Yang’s and Hoffman’s study compared the three leading interfaces, Evergreen, Koha, and WebVoyage, according to ten criteria, the result being that Koha is the best developed OPAC out of the three. After reading about the wonderful features of Koha, I was wondering why anybody would want to use anything else. However, after reading Moody’s post discussing Koha’s background and current internal issues, I wonder how much longer Koha will be around. I also just had two basic questions raised by these readings. Both discussed proprietary vs. open source catalogues, and I wonder first of all what those two terms mean and second what the difference is between them.
If I remember correctly, open source software means that the source code for a program, in this case, the ILS, is open and can be edited by users. With proprietary software, the source code is copyrighted by the owning company/organization and all changes need to go through them. In terms of ILS's (how do you pluralize that?), open-source catalogs would allow libraries to make changes that cater to their specific communities on their own, instead of having to pay to make those modifications.
ReplyDeleteI think what Joss meant in her article is that the policy should be like print books because print books have no policy. Sure, most print books may wear out after 26 uses, but some don't and you can keep circulating them as long as you want.
Delete