Untitled

Referring to the Zimmer article from Monday’s class, this whole notion of Web 2.0 appears to be making a scene everywhere. And when I say scene, I’m just being overly dramatic… kind of. What I really mean is that people are actually becoming very where of its presence today, especially in terms of an individual’s own web presence (AKA social media). I’m not going to lie, I have so made so many social media accounts throughout the years… but I was “smart” (you could kind of say) because I use a pseudonym for the majority of my online presence. I only use my real name on Facebook because apparently that’s what you’re supposed to do. And because I’ve used my real name, everyone can locate my profile if they know where to look. Luckily, I have an incredibly common name, so I mean…there are, like, at least 300 other people with the same name from Canada with a Facebook profile. Mind you, because you can search friends using email, all of my contacts (yes, parents included) have found me on Facebook. So looking back to 2006 when I got Facebook (back when you actually had to have a university email address to be accepted to the network) and comparing it to now, I have changed so much information on my profile to purposely exclude personal information so as to keep my information private. Zimmer’s article had me interested in further researching Web 2.0 and issues of privacy, so obviously I Googled it and came across quite an interesting article titled “7 Things You Should Know About Privacy in Web 2.0 Learning Environments” by the EDUCAUSE Association (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnet.educause.edu%2Fir%2Flibrary%2Fpdf%2FELI7064.pdf&ei=DzE_U4CoFuOs2gXH_4GABQ&usg=AFQjCNEo2XLrhiNCq3UEo-_rC8B5TXsURA&bvm=bv.64367178,d.b2I&cad=rja). (sorry, the article is in a .pdf format - only download it if you want to!)

Internet Filtering Regimes, and the one we’re apparently not supposed to know about…

So one thing that specifically interested me from last Monday’s presentation/reading focuses on Ian Brown’s article “Internet Censorship – be careful what you wish for” …the section of the article discussing existing filtering regimes specifically. Before the presentation, I knew that censorship was a “thing” in a lot of countries, but I didn’t exactly know to what depth censorship was such a big deal. For example, the “Great Firewall of China” (pg 1), or the filtering of pretty much everything in Iran. Whereas in Saudi Arabia, people are given the option to request to unblock a specific site, but I mean…you have to fill out a form and it has to be approved…and chances are that it won’t be. So I decided to look further into this whole internet filtering, and came across an interesting article that just popped up, written by Jane Fae on a UK political news website titled “The internet censorship programme you’re not allowed to know about” (Here is the link: http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/03/27/the-internet-censorship-programme-you-re-not-allowed-to-know). It discusses controls that have been applied to domestic ISPs in the UK recently, and a list of websites that are apparently encouraging digital piracy. Jane goes on to talk about how this list has been given to companies that provide filtering products, and how a lecturer at a Dublin University has been researching some questions using the freedom of information legislation. He is curious as to what sites are being filtered, and who is doing the filtering, because some type of funny business was going on in the UK with filtering companies blocking sites that were not exactly supposed to be filtered. There was also an unknown company in the UK who was filtering so-called terrorist websites, and those companies that were being asked about it where denying any information about it. The article goes in about controversies with some of these companies, so check it out if you’re interested. I just thought it was weird that some company was voluntarily blocking a number of websites, terrorist-related or not, and wouldn’t admit to it. The UK already has internet filtering in place, so it is interesting that someone decided to further filter through the access available to those of the UK. Does this incident suggest that there might be more acts like these to come in the future of the internet and its filtration? Or was this just a small incident that we should forget about? I personally think that this is a sign that people are figuring out way too much and way too fast, and using this power in a way that is probably not the best, considering the whole right to information/freedom legislations.

Works Cited:

Copyright is such a large issue, and has been covered in so many ways, that it has actually been a challenge for me when it comes to narrowing it down to one single element in order to focus on a discussion. With my presentation last week, I focused on the idea of the use of copyright and the digital library, further focusing on how digital libraries are affected by copyright issues when it comes to digitizing materials that are originally in print form. Those who are in charge of making digital copies of print materials may be considered to be infringing copyright in that they are making duplicates of a work for the sake of digitizing and possibly preserving it. I found a great article on this topic by a library law consultant at Stanford University, Mary Minow. (The link to the article is here: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/2003/11/10/digital_preservation_and_copyr/ ). In this article, Minow talks about the digitization process in order for preservation, and that making copies, or a “reproduction”, of a work is an exclusive right of the copyright owner, not the library or anyone else. So what do you do if your job is to make a digital copy of a copyrighted print material? Minow discusses some exceptions. First she makes mention that if something is published by the “federal government […], facts, ideas, and expired works” then they are in the public domain and are available for reproduction. However, if you come across a work that is not in the public domain and has a copyright license, then there are 3 sections of the copyright law in the United States that may be of help to you (just keep in mind that these apply to the US, so be wary if you’re in Canada): Archiving Computer Programs, Making Preservation Copies (Libraries and Archives only), and of course, the Fair Use (Fair dealing for Canada!) preservation. There are links available to these specific sections on Minow’s article if you’re interested in reading more about these sections.

Okay, so I still think this whole RFID thing is creepy and cool at the same time. I don't know which side I'm leaning more to as for right now, but I mean, the fact that people have the technology to just brush up against you and steal ALL of your information from any cards that are chip-enabled makes me want to line the inside of my coat, purse, backpack and jean pockets with tin foil. Just saying. Reading the Newitz article made me want to explore more about these RFIDs and how they can be used both inside and out of the library setting. Working at the library at King's, we are soooo advanced in that we have already RFID chipped the entire collection. (Okay, not every book, but I think MOST of them). This makes the checking-in/checking-out process much more quick and efficient for the circulation staff. However, at the same time, it can also be a bit of an annoyance. These RFID chips that have been attached to the books are so easily picked up by the sensors on the counter that they often get scanned in twice, creating a pop-up that "This item has already been scanned" that won't clear until you manually have to move the computer mouse and select "Okay" (rough life, I know). Or, if an RFID chipped book hasn't been removed from the counter and we scan in a different students account, the sensor collects the data from the book that they DON'T want, and adds it to their file. If it for some reason goes unnoticed by the staff, this poor kid freaks out when they get an email saying the book is due, even though they've never checked it out, let alone heard of it, causing a state of panic about library fines, blah blah blah... So with the good comes the bad (and in this case, the irritating and/or annoying).             Also in the Newitz article, the part where she writes about RFID tags "being used to track difficult-to-manage property like farm animals" (p.3) immediately reminded me of when I first registered my dog at the vet back in 2007. They had asked me if I was interested in "installing" a tracking device on my dog. I asked how they would go about doing that and they told me that it would be a minor surgery where they installed a computer chip under her skin near the back of her neck. I looked at my Mom (she was with me)with a questioning glance as if the vet was an insane person, and definitely said "No, that's okay". After Xanthia's excellent presentation about RFID chips and how some people had actually installed this chips in their hand, I can see what the vet was getting at. But seriously, today, I still would not make a poor dog get surgery just so I can track where she goes if she runs away. I mean, seriously. Would you put an RFID in your newborn child to track him/her if she ever runs away? I didn't think so...