A few years ago, the American Library Association had a trademarked slogan called @ your library™. I bought some posters for my school library with various celebrities on them reading their favorite books. Read @ your library™!, the posters would say. The celebrities were always posed holding the book open at about chest height so you could see the cover of the book they had probably never read themselves: Nicholas Cage holding The Old man and the Sea, for instance.
Now not only can you read @ your library™!, but you can be fingerprinted, too, making it all the easier for the FBI to track you down when you commit the unconscionable act of using the library’s computer resources for suspicious activity. The Free Range Librarian points out an article on the ALA website, Naperville to Launch Fingerprint ID System for Internet Access, which states that one public library system in Naperville, Illinois, has indeed implemented a system for fingerprinting patrons as a way of tracking computer usage.
The reasons for a public library introducing biometric identification for computer access seems a bit muddled, to say the least. On the one hand, the library says it wants to prevent people from using a friend’s or relative’s library card number to log on to the library’s computers. Also stated is that using biometrics will allow a parental filter to be loaded at logon for children accessing the computer. Filtering in libraries is a whole other smelly kettle of fish, so I won’t go into that subject. School libraries, at least, lost that battle long ago.
However, if you read the article carefully, you discover that the idea of fingerprinting patrons first occurred to library staff when police subpoenaed patron records to prosecute a man charged with viewing pornography. It’s unclear whether the police used the Patriot Act to demand these records, but that would be a good question to know the answer to. Presumably the man the police were investigating was also masturbating, because as far as I know, it isn’t necessarily a violation of the law to simply look at pornography in a library, unless it’s child pornography. You might be asked to leave the library, but you won’t be arrested for looking at porn. You might not even be asked to leave. The issue of how to handle open Internet access is a persistant, prickly matter for librarians.
What the police investigation revealed is that patrons were using other people’s ID’s to log on to the library computers, thus inhibiting the police from prosecuting their man.
It’s unclear then how fingerprinting would prevent the viewing of pornography and/or masturbation in a library. Would the Reference Staff be equipped with portable fingerprint identification kits so they could lift a print from suspicious genitalia? Aha, you’ve been fondling yourself, Sir or Madam!
No, I don’t think so. Thus what we have here is a public library helping police “police” people’s on-line activity, simple as that. It might seem innocuous, especially since it is only one public library system, but in my opinion it violates just about every tenet of good librarianship, chiefly the right to privacy of library patrons. Librarians do not censor, they do not “police” anything or anyone. They certainly should not be in the business of helping the State police anyone. I admit I am no law and order type, however. I reserve all my mistrust for the State and its appendages. What’s your opinion about this?