Computer layouts in libraries.
Most of the events described in the 'Library Dispute' section of this website stemmed from an argument about the lack of privacy afforded to computer users in public libraries in Devon (UK). This webpage skims over some of the central arguments on both sides. Photos are elsewhere. One of the few relevant books on the subject is 'Public Internet Access' by Paul Sturges (ISBN 1-85604-425-4), Facet Publishing, 2002. A relevant conference/workshop paper was published in 2003.
"If we accept the argument that
true freedom of information is only finally achieved when information can be used in
genuine privacy, the issues raised by the 'Privacy and Human Rights' report should be
central concerns of the information profession."
Paul Sturges. Loughborough University. (Quoted in Update 1/03)
"Lack of privacy is certainly an
accusation that could be levelled at our set-up in Cambridgeshire. It's a deliberate
decision."
Robert Day. Library ICT Manager. (Quoted in Update 1/03)
"I might have been a gold-fish in
a glass bowl
for all the privacy I got."
SAKI [H. H. Munro] The Innocence of Reginald
Some of the 'worst' and 'best' examples of computer layouts from the point of view of users of public libraries are shown here. Parts of this website resulted from the layout of public access computers in Sidmouth library, and from the subsequent refusal of Devon County Council to respond to queries and complaints. Feedback from other libraries would be welcome (small emails and no attachments please).
Ideally and even arguably, privacy would be provided as of right for all users. Computers would be located either in separate rooms or along a windowless wall (with users backs against the wall), and there would be no disturbance for other library users. These conditions cannot readily be achieved in many existing libraries because of lack of space and conflicts with shelving. Some compromise is therefore necessary, as is a degree of 'supervision' if only to prevent blatant tampering with equipment. This could take the form of some computers being nested close together in very public areas (for users who do not mind being overlooked) and with others being positioned so as to afford privacy. Even in designing a new library, it may be appropriate to provide both types of locations, so that (for example) staff can keep an eye on younger users. However, few users actively want to be overlooked and disruption to other library users taken as a whole will be minimised if most computer screens can be seen only by the people using them.
However, little can excuse the worst and most arrogant of library managers who have installed computers with no thought for the dignity of users and in buildings where better layouts would easily have been possible. Devon County Council has provided many examples including at Sidmouth, Honiton and Tavistock. In Cambridgeshire, older layouts that afforded some privacy have recently been replaced by nested groups of computers in full public view as an over-reaction to occasional attempted misuse, the philosophy being that if a few people attempt to misuse machines then in future all users will be punished.
In all these cases, screens can be overseen by both staff and casual passers by (and are big enough to be viewed from up to 3 metres or 10 feet away), noise from keyboards becomes a feature of the whole library and no work of a confidential nature can be undertaken. One of the more risible of the stated aims of the People's Network is to encourage uptake of e-government. Who in a small town could concentrate on filling out a tax return or benefit form on-line in the middle of a busy library and in view of some of the local nosey-parkers?
Cartoon (origin unknown), sent to the author as a Christmas card, 2002.
What seems to have been overlooked is that whereas there is certainly a need to 'protect' overly sensitive people from being exposed to on-screen pornography within the most public areas of a library, there is no logical or good reason why legal material should not be accessed by those people who wish to do so, provided screens cannot be overlooked and their behaviour does not didrupt other library users. Once this is accepted (and without making moral judgements within a society where commercialized sex is endemic and available on every bookstall) many of the problems of 'managing' Internet content disappear. In any case, the amount of on-screen sex that can be displayed without entering a credit card number is limited, and anyone so inclined would (in all likelihood) be able to afford a £45 computer of his (or indeed her) own! For the relevance of this, see the Explanatory Note within the first few paragraphs of the webpage describing the People's Network in more detail.
Certainly, it can be argued that viewing pornography is a waste of time, an impediment to rational thought and behaviour and detrimental to civilisation but so (arguably) is viewing 50% of material that is available on the Internet, reading 80% of novels, astrology, retail therapy, overeating and watching most television. This has not stopped library managers supporting a general right of access - for example Robert Day from Cambridgeshire, well known in the UK for his involvement in Library ICT puts it thus:
"Trivial websites are used by lots of our users so we can assume they think that access to such sites should be readily available" (Quoted in Update, the CILIP magazine Jan 2003).
It is encouraging however that CILIP has recently come down strongly against 'snooping' in libraries and the Chief Executive Dr McKee has been quoted as saying that libraries should be places where people can pursue their interests "free from interference and in complete privacy". Further discussion of this article and a link to it are given on page total_info_aware_system.htm in the privacy section. In the USA many librarians support 'total privacy' for users - and many do not. A selection of cartoons from the USA takes a minute to download with a slow modem.
The other specious argument used to justify 'snooping' on library computer users is also well put by Robert Day. In discussing the differences between reference books and the Internet he observes:
"PCs in libraries have the potential of being the tool for carrying out illegal activity rather than just providing the information to facilitate it"
Fraud is certainly a major and growing concern, and with e-commerce and e-business being held back by distrust of the Internet, including the 'other uses' to which personal data can be put when it is entered for a specific single purpose. Therefore, there is much to be said for forcing banks and other commercial organisations to 'get their act together' in respect of computer crime and misuse by the business community itself. Much e-crime, especially by employees, goes unreported and is not prosecuted because (for example) major banks are fearful of losing customer confidence. Arguably, if systems are vulnerable, hackers do a public service in exposing weaknesses and helping to force those in whom we must place our trust to do their jobs properly.
A paradigm shift is underway even within Microsoft to put security at the heart of computer products rather than rely on constant upgrades and application of patches to plug or hide weaknesses that should not have been there from the start. The arguments are of course more complex on both sides yet as a principle, it seems morally questionable whether the privacy of library users should be compromised in order to protect the incompetence of computer professionals. Once snooping systems and lack of privacy are accepted it may be difficult to remove them if only because governments are by their nature reluctant to give up any form of control. Better then (maybe!) to accept that some 'inappropriate' material may be viewed and that a few frauds may occur than to submit at the outset to all-pervading surveillance. CILIP has used similar arguments against giving up too many freedoms "even in the face of terrorism".
What is certainly true is that some Councils in charge of public access computer systems are driven not by a rational desire to do public good by snooping on Internet users but by fear of being held legally responsible for allowing some chance or deliberate exposure to 'unsuitable' material. This is usually in the context of child or other pornography, a subject that arguably has reached the heights of absurdity and counter-productive self-righteousness. In the UK, (one would have preferred to say, Even in the UK,) high profile TV personalities have been investigated at length by the police for taking photos of their own children in a bath, and video recording of nativity plays in schools has been banned because of the risk that one in a million of these might fall into the hands of a paedophile. Even female librarians are instructed never to touch a child, even if it is hurt or crying. If Society continues down this road, it will soon be illegal for any child to be seen in public, and development of social skills by being allowed to talk to older people will be prohibited. It is the most recent example of mass hysteria and in a society where children are put at risk from myriad other influences, often by their parents or in the guise of education.
"We know of no spectacle so
ridiculous as the British
public in one of its periodical fits of morality."
Thomas Macaulay 'Moore's Life of Byron'
Diagrams and photos are available on a separate webpage - there may eventually be quite a few! If there are any examples of particularly 'good or bad' layouts on the web, please tell me. A good list of UK library websites is available - see the links here.
The only 'campaign' organisation for or against libraries in the UK appears to be www.librarycampaign.co.uk but this is centred mostly around a few low-key local groups. The aims include to highlight cuts in the library service, especially in books, staffing levels and opening hours. The poor state of many library buildings in the UK is also mentioned. This touches on what may be a key reason why some libraries have devoted so little effort to modifying buildings to accommodate computers - it is unfortunately the case that (in some areas at least) libraries appear not to be offered the freedom to choose whether to have buildings' repair and alteration works supervised or even undertaken by 'in-house' council staff.
In the grand tradition of monopoly markets, laziness can be combined with poor value for money and no-one ever questions the invoice. The author's own experience on Sidmouth Town Council included raising his eyebrows at the plans for a modest bus shelter that was to cost far more than a large and expensively constructed double garage! Such is life within local government in the UK. For further details see the 'government incompetence' section of this website.