RFID and Libraries

Is RFID really useful in libraries?

I am willing to whole-heartedly acknowledge that the RFID would be extremely useful for libraries. Whenever patrons misplace items they have barrowed and are unable to find them, this piece of technology can help librarians locate their possessions. The only way the item can be officially declared as lost is if it gets destroyed and/or the equipment has been removed, which also means there is no guarantee of tracking someone who committed a theft. The situation can be just as frustrating when items are lost within the library, which those who have experiences in shelf-reading (such as myself) often witness. Most patrons have tendencies to place the books they glanced through briefly into random places amongst the shelves. I would have believed they have trouble comprehending the Dewey Decimal System had it not been for the fact that they can make quite a mess in the fiction section as well. Sometimes the more considerate patrons can also be a burden. There are occasions when those people believe that they are saving the staff some trouble by putting a book they borrowed for a while right back into the original location, without handing it to the front desk. However, this only does the opposite. Because the system will claim that the book was never returned, the patrons end up being penalized. Through the use of RFID, it can certainly relieve so much hassle in terms of helping staff members within libraries search for books.

Are privacy concerns about RFID in library a real concern?

There is no argument that the issue of privacy should spring up into people’s minds concerning the utilization of RFID. I am sure it is disturbing enough for patrons that the computer systems in the libraries are keeping track of their identities and where they live, since they must provide such information for validation purposes when applying to receive their library cards. Because the database also contains all the items each individual has ever borrowed, technically speaking information about their personalities is also being documented. By throwing the RFID ingredient into the mix, the recipe is becoming slightly more disastrous, now that the library is able to track the patrons down wherever they ago, assuming they always carry the borrowed items with them. If the government wanted to spy on us, then I am sure the public officials will turn to more places than the local libraries to do their dirty work, with more than just RFID. The biggest concern, or at least in my opinion, about RFID in libraries is how the staff is going to handle the situation. Because the items from the library can be detected with more ease, there is always the possibility of a certain member being able to use the technology for stalking the patrons with greater efficiency. It is bad enough they can easily find out where the potential victims live.

How to make RFID a better technology for libraries?

The best way RFID can be a better service to libraries is if the staff members are required to follow a strict set of guidelines on how to use the technology. There is as much of a guarantee that those within the library system will respect those rules as they already do for whatever guidelines are in use concerning the use of technologies currently available. If that library is capable of wielding those equipments with responsibility, then it is safe to say that adding one more should not be much a problem. There is the issue of figuring out how it works and how to use it, but other than that, the staff members should be able to have a good grasp around it like everything else they had to acquire. It is just one more protocol to memorize. If I was to decide under what condition to use RFID after the implementation, then I would strongly suggest that the staff consider such an option when a situation gets a little out of control. As I have mentioned before, when patrons admit they have misplaced what they borrowed and cannot find them, or the items are probably jumbled up someplace random within the library, only then should RFID be put into consideration.

Muddiest Point

I am going to hold Zachary Sharrow (a.k.a. pittlis2600) and John Seberger (a.k.a. jsslis2600) responsible for corrupting me on this issue. Whenever I read anything, I try to be as unbiased as possible. I feared that if I show bias to what I am reading, then I am not absorbing the information properly. This is why I considered this so-called “Muddiest Point” as a ridiculous part of the course and feared that I would not make much progress in the area. However, this began to change after I read and commented on the notes of those two students. Apparently, both seem to view the Vaughan article with the lowest regards. Zachary believed that the lack of details on the “decision-making” was a significant flaw, while John, faithful to his BA, believed that case-studies have “some validity (however much or little), but not a great deal of reliability.” In response to the former, I believe that even if that issue was mentioned, I am sure someone else would find something else wrong with the article. Nothing so brief can ever cover everything and I simply dismissed his remark as just his opinion. As for the latter, seeing as how a case-study only focuses on one entity, I can see why he regards it as misleading. Since more than one person demonstrated the most criticism for the same article, this compelled me to believe that the Vaughan article was indeed the weakest after all. If the amount of criticism they shared applied to any of the other two articles, I probably would have considered the OCLC or Lynch as the weakest. Maybe after the flaws are shown they become more noticeable. As I have mentioned before, I try to be as unbiased as possible when I read anything so as to make sure the information I take in does not get distorted. After noticing the Vaughan article was met with the most criticism, I became convinced to hold the same level of regard for it as well.

Week 1: Introduction and Course Overview

Because the links that contain the required readings for Week 1 are currently unavailable, I am unable to glance through the articles a second time. Without the means to refresh my memory, I will just have to try recalling my reactions to what I had read. From what I can remember, there have been reports on how the latest technological breakthroughs in formatting and distributing sources of information can cause more harm than good. This problem consists of the following issues (For the record, I am trying to respectively place the required readings into a nutshell): (1.) Just about anyone can publish material and the information often lacks legitimacy; (2.) If these technologies are designed to supposedly make people’s lives easier, then everyone needs to obtain mastery of those tools; (3.) Because these breakthroughs are developed at such a rapid pace, it becomes increasingly difficult for everyone to be on the same page.

When it comes to those who like to publish what we may consider as the equivalent of tabloid newspapers, there is nothing we can really do about it. So long as freedom of speech continues to be enforced, such individuals will cower behind the first amendment whenever they receive complaints for their mudslinging. Although they are responsible for bringing so much filth, the World Wide Web is not their exclusive pigpen. The Internet seems like the perfect place for their dirty games, but little do they realize everyone’s invited to the playing field. To make sure everyone is able to compete, they need to learn the rules of the game. Once more people are able to compete, they are all able to compete fairly and not one individual or group is able to have any advantage over the other. Since the rules of the game are constantly changing, there is no guarantee that might happen. Some may catch on more than others, perhaps even better, or maybe not at all. Ultimately, what is important is that everyone has an opportunity.

Call it hindsight bias if you want, but I felt like I was being reminded of the materials I had read and reread during my years as an undergrad and the courses of my earlier semesters. Of course, I still feel grateful about informed, since I tend to forget about these issues. As much as I look forward to working in a library or archive, I need to keep remembering that not everyone, including patrons and staff members, may be technology literate. As I am familiarizing myself with these concerns more and more, I should be able to know how to address them. I also need to make sure they are not dependent on me. I can only feel confident about meeting my objective of educating the less knowledgeable if they are able to become tech-savvy enough to handle the tasks on their own. And if they become capable of giving other people instructions, so that they can do the same with others, and the same for the next group of people, then that would be even better for me. Knowledge is power and with great power comes great responsibility. In order to wield this power responsibly, we need to be able to protect our influences.