Terminalcoffee discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Feeling Nostalgic? The archives
>
Should libraries have security cameras?
date
newest »
newest »
I was ambivalent until the end and this comment:"[Bill] Ptacek, [director] of the King County Library System, said cameras often provide a false sense of security, and there are enough staff members to visually supervise the libraries. "We're not in the business of surveillance," he said."
The article made it clear that security being provided by the cameras - in the sense of crimes being solved - isn't false. And I don't believe it's the responsibility of library staff to enforce laws, or that visually supervising the libraries is the best use of their skills. I don't think this has anything to do with intellectual freedom or a First Amendment issue. I say bring back the cameras.
I think it would work the same as the record of what you check out - yes, it's possible that there could be a court order (under Patriot act and all that) and what you've been checking out could be seen, but outside of that, librarians have a policy of confidentiality. So I don't think it's THAT big a concern. But I could be wrong.BTW, I used to work for Bill Ptacek when he was the director of the Louisville Free Public Library. I suppose he was good enough at what he did, but I remember being so annoyed that we had all these policies, and if somebody complained about them, he'd give in, making the people out there on the floor look like the jerks.
Rebecca wrote: "I think it would work the same as the record of what you check out - yes, it's possible that there could be a court order (under Patriot act and all that) and what you've been checking out could be..."When I worked in retail, the district manager at my store was like that. We had to enforce the unpopular policies while he got to swoop in and make exceptions to save the day and make us out to be the bad guys.
Yep...probably a lot of that in this world. In addition to lack of loyalty to the people doing what you're telling them too, it also means giving in to assholes, which I'm against. (not that there aren't many legitimate reasons to complain, but a lot of the time it's a matter of giving in to shut somebody up)
It is also true that there is much more vandalism and stealing in libraries than most people probably expect, so that is a definite thing in the plus column.
I think the Patriot Act is only allowed to requisition your checkouts if you have outstanding fines.
The cameras in the libraries I know about aren't in the stacks. They're monitoring the behavior in the back hallway, where there's been trouble with drug use. Oh, and there's a dummy camera in the elevator in one of the libraries because someone was peeing in there. He stopped once they put in the fake camera with a sign saying "Smile, you're on camera."
Oh, by the way, it's NOT Seattle removing the cameras. Seattle Public Libraries, according to the article, are retaining their cameras. Seattle Public is separate from the King County Library System, which is all the cities surrounding Seattle, but NOT Seattle.
KCLS is removing the cameras. Because there's less crime in the suburbs?
We have cameras at two service desks, the front door and the 24 hour room. We have used the front door camera to show that the person was shaking books out of his pant leg, or dropping them on the floor after we called him back in when the security gate beeped.There is no chance we could use the footage to determine what book you are reading, it is barely clear enough to show the person's face.
We do scrub patron records, so after you return a book there is no record that you've had it. Unless you incur fines.
I think one of the jobs of a library director is to determine if a patron should get a little leeway on the policies. Over time, employees can be given that same control to make case by case decisions.
Possibly, but in these cases, it was just the squeaky wheel getting the grease. And if policies are going to be compromised, it's possible to do so in a way that is respectful of the employee and gives him or her credit for following procedure, not leaving him or her out there dangling like the bad guy.
Agreed, Rebecca. The head of the library, and of the library system, should be there for the staff, and take the heat if necessary for library policies. That's what those folks get the big bucks for, to explain and interpret library policy in areas like filtered or unfiltered internet access, book challenges, and patron confidentiality, and use tact and diplomacy with the public who aren't familiar with the issues.
Those are strong arguments, coupled with the fact as somebody pointed out, that the cameras really aren't good enough to see book titles. And even if they were, people are supposed to be able to read what they want, dammit!
The Oregon libraries frequented by Christopher Storrer should definitely have security cameras.Book burglar takes off with hundreds of books
Security cameras are my bread and butter. I think they should be everywhere.
Interesting... I'll have to think on this for a while to figure out how I feel. I don't mind being monitored because I have nothing to hide but still, the idea of everyday, constant monitoring does not settle well. Yet if this helps police catch criminals, I'm for it... but sometimes that kind of power and control can be corrupted... ((sigh))
I watch so many of those police shows where they use the footage from area cameras to figure out where someone may have disappeared or were accosted. I would be for cameras outside of the library for safety's sake. Inside, I don't really care who knows what I read. Otherwise, I wouldn't be on Goodreads. Sometimes it's good to have footage when there are two sides to a story such as the coach and the autistic kid. I have no idea if our local library has a camera. I'm going to have to ask the next time I'm there.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article...
What do you think?
This quote in particular was interesting:
We decided the cameras were not serving a purpose and were a point of contention with law enforcement," said Bill Ptacek, who as director of the county library system has the final say. "We don't want to be in an adversarial relationship. We believe intellectual freedom is the important part, so we got out of the camera business."
Are security cameras in libraries a potential affront to intellectual freedom? In other words, could the video be used to track what people read and what people do in the library? Or is this a security issue? What should the line be drawn?