The ALA's response in the article is that monitoring computers would make people "feel uncomfortable," in other words, embarrass them. Irrelevant, and the ALA knows it! ALA Deputy Director Deborah Caldwell-Stone was deeply involved in the US Supreme Court case the ALA lost and lost big. It is called US v. ALA. She appeared in the media discussing the case. Yet here she is, in yet another community, making believe the case doesn't exist, changing embarrassment to feeling uncomfortable. Here's what the Court said about embarrassment that the ALA apparently doesn't want you to know:
The District Court viewed unblocking and disabling as inadequate because some patrons may be too embarrassed to request them. 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 411. But the Constitution does not guarantee the right to acquire information at a public library without any risk of embarrassment.
This library director is a trend setter. "Lakewood was one of the first libraries to help police nab a patron viewing child pornography." (Recall the ALA is nearly silent about the library employee fired for doing the exact same thing.)
He's about to do it again, to set another trend. Pay attention, as this may be the wave of the future:
"Now the library ... might expand its monitoring policy by using free software that allows librarians to remotely monitor what a patron is viewing on a computer screen."
Yes, that's right! Read more at "No Privacy at Library; Some Officials Consider Use of Software to Monitor Patrons' Use of Internet on Public-Access Computers," by Molly Kavanaugh, Plain Dealer, Wednesday, Jun 18, 2008.
If ever a library deserved an award from Family Friendly Libraries, it would be this one.
