Category Archives: Thoughts

Stack O’ Books — Sources on Transparency and Privacy. Part Eight

Stack O' Books


Back in the 1950s, Kochen (a mathematician) and Pool (a political scientist) were the first to think about it but couldn’t find a solution without computers. Milgram (a psychologist), aided by White (a physicist-sociologist) and followed by Bernard (an anthropologist) and Killworth (an oceanographer), then attacked the problem empirically but couldn’t explain how it actually worked. Thirty years later, Steve and I (mathematicians) turned the problem into one about networks generally but failed to see its algorithmic component, leaving that door for Jon (a computer scientist) to open. Jon, in turn, left the door open for Mark (a physicist), Peter (a mathematician), and me (now a sociologist of sorts) to walk through and pick up the solution that now seems to have been lying there all along. It’s been a long trail, almost fifty years, and now we think we finally understand the problem, it seems like someone ought to have figured it out long ago. But it had to happen this way. (pp. 160-161)

Six Degrees, by Dunan J. Watts.

Comment: I admit, part of the reason I selected this quote was because it mentioned Fred, and I wanted to show that I’m not the only person who thinks he did some important work. More importantly, however, is the way in which this wonderful story illustrates the essential importance of boundary-spanning and collaboration in knowledge discovery. I spend a fair amount of time on this in the chapter, and while this particular quote didn’t fit into the story I was trying to craft, it supports it nicely, and I wish I could have included it.


Duncan Watts and Dalton Conley discuss Six Degrees of Separation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFK1bpQwHF4


This new “immune system” may be imperfect … but at least we started noticing some dangers, like ozone depletion and species extinction, long before the trends grew too severe. Passionate advocates and antagonists swarm around each problem, hollering so loud we can’t ignore the peril, even when we squeeze our eyes shut and hope it goes away. This trend is especially important given society’s growing complexity and the rapid pace of change. Science and technology must progress swiftly, in order to offer any hope of solving the world’s problems. Still, with every advance, new questions and dilemmas burst forth to confound even a culture filled with large numbers of college graduates. As the recent furor over human cloning showed, it takes time for people to listen, argue among themselves, overreact, learn some more, and finally start making the sort of practical, as we go decisions that may (with luck) take us into the twenty-first century in fairly decent shape. (pp. 142-143)

The irony here is that our relative immunity against fallacy is in large part carried out via the adversarial tug and push of countless indignant, righteous, and often narrow-minded individuals, many of whome would be anything but tolerant or democratically inclined if by some magic or intrigue they ever achieved coercive power. The service they provide for the rest of us — the calm, relatively contented majority — cannot be overstated. (p. 143)

The Transparent Society, by David Brin.

Comment: For me, choosing quotes from this book is almost impossible. My first copy is studded with little shreds of torn paper marking places where David said something especially important. I agonized over the quotes to include in the book chapter, because I had limited space and many voices to include. I was trying so hard to give equal space to both sides of the debate, when what I wanted to do was just hand people copies of David’s book and make them read it. It was so hard for me to think of anything unique that I could bring to the conversation. I tried anyway.

The first time I met David was when he was on tour for this important book, having fought with his reluctant publishers to get it out in print. He spoke on campus in a rather unusual and elegant room in the UM Law School, a room which reminded me of a church in some ways. We chatted afterwards, and have stayed in touch over the years through various social media.

This was the most important book for me while I was working on my chapter. I bought extra copies of it, so that I would have access to it in many places without needing to depend on carrying it around with me. Then I carried it around anyway. David is quoted in my chapter several times, but not as many as I wanted.

This book is beyond being a must-read on the topic. After the book had been out for a few years, reviewers started to denigrate it based on its age, saying things like, “Surprisingly relevant, given how dated it is.” I always want to blow raspberries when I hear things like that. This book has at no point since publication been anything less than the most important work available on the topic of the dynamics of transparency and privacy in our evolving society. READ THIS! There are others that go into specific aspects in more depth, but I know of no other single work that does such a brilliant job of tersely describing the issues, trends, risks and benefits of various scenarios. (Not to mention that David studs the book with little gems of quotations from other writers, giving you clues about who else to read to extend your reading in this area.) David himself does take this to the next level with his new fiction masterpiece, Existence, which places many of these core concepts in story form for easy digestion. Read both!


The Transparent Society: Secrecy vs. Privacy, Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0AX79lT4_c


The Transparent Society: Secrecy vs. Privacy, Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oz2CZgrm8k

Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oz2CZgrm8k&playnext=1&list=PL454460A507A72911&feature=results_main

Stack O’ Books — Sources on Transparency and Privacy. Part Seven

Stack O' Books


The trouble seems to be that it is no man’s business to understand the general patterns and reactions of science as the economist understands the business world. Given some knowledge of economics, a national business policy can be formulated, decrees can be promulgated, recessions have some chance of being controlled, the electorate can be educated. I do not know, indeed, whether one might in fact understand the crises of modern science so well as to have the power to do anything about them. I must, however, suggest that the petty illnesses of science — its superabundance of literature, its manpower shortages, its increasing specialization, its tendency to deteriorate in quality — all these things are but symptoms of a general disease. That disease is partly understood by the historian, and might be understood better if it were any man’s professional province to do so. Even if we could not control the crisis that is almost upon us, there would at least be some satisfaction in understanding what is hitting us. (p. 193)

Science Since Babylon (1961), by Derek John DeSolla Price

Comment: Another important work from the classics I read in graduate school. I find it ironic that the challenges for the practice of science explicitly articulated here — “its superabundance of literature, its manpower shortages, its increasing specialization, its tendency to deteriorate in quality” — are even more prominent now, fifty years later, than they were in 1961 when Price described them as a disease.


You see, I have the advantage of having found out how hard it is to really get to know something, how careful you have to be about checking the experiments, how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourself. I know what it means to know something, and therefore I see how they get their information and I can’t believe that they know it, they haven’t done the work necessary, haven’t done the checks necessary, haven’t done the care necessary. (p. 22)

The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, by Richard Feynman.

Comment: It is always entertaining to read Feynman, and his insights into the practice of science, its dynamics, strengths and weaknesses, are valuable to consider even when you disagree with him. If you disagree with him, can you refute him, and if so, based on what evidence? The issues he raises here, about making mistakes and fooling yourself, are especially critical for each innovator to consider in this time of rapid change when innovations arise, crest, and vanish before we have time to evaluate their unknown risks and hidden costs.


The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, Richard Feynman Interview (1981) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXiOg5-l3fk

Stack O’ Books — Sources on Transparency and Privacy. Part Six

Stack O' Books


There is some evidence that the diffusion of a scientific innovation is a fashion-like process in which influence is transmitted through steadily expanding networks of scientists. Thus it is plausible to view science as an enormous cluster of innovations, of which the most successful are diffused by means of a contagion process that produces a logistic curve in all facets of scientific activity. Behind the seemingly impersonal structure of scientific knowledge, there is a vast interpersonal network that screens new ideas in terms of a central theme or paradigm, permitting some a wide audience and consigning many to oblivion. (p. 76)

Invisible Colleges (1972), by Diana Crane.

Comment: Some debate the scholarship and design of the research on which this work is based, but say what you will, this was at that time one of the works that most influenced thought on how social relationships shape knowledge and our understanding of scientific discovery. Much of our current work on the influence of social networks on scholarship and policy development is based at root on the thoughts expressed in this book by Diana Crane. The influence of this book extends far past academia to the design and development of such now-everyday tools as Facebook and Twitter, and even to popular culture, with this anecdotal example:
IF “Invisible = Unseen”
AND “College = University”
THEN “Invisible College” = “Unseen University”.


It makes sense that having two cerebral hemispheres that process information in uniquely different ways would increase our brain’s capacity to experience the world around us and increase our chances for survival as a species. Because our two hemispheres are so adept at weaving together a single seamless perception of the world, it is virtually impossible for us to consciously distinguish between what is going on in our left hemisphere versus our right hemisphere. (p. 28)

My Stroke of Insight (2006), by Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor.

Comment: There were two specific ways in which this book caught my interest. One was this concept shown in the quote above that apparent opposites need not necessarily actually function in opposition to each other, but may instead be complementary and necessary aspects of forming a functional whole. The other aspect is the idea that we cannot easily perceive that which is part of our body or part of our existence when it functions normally, but only when it does not. Like Dr. Jill, I also suffered a kind of brain damage, most notably when I suffered severe chronic long term carbon monoxide poisoning a dozen years ago. We are often told that we cannot feel things inside our brain, but as part of the damage and healing process, I had powerful visceral sensations associated with trying to think about memories or skills located in the damaged area, as well as the sensations of the neurons sending out new or extended axons, probing around the damage, trying to find a new path to the old information. Similarly, we don’t tend to notice our feet unless they hurt, our lungs unless we are struggling to breathe, etcetera. Both of these are important lessons not just for how we as individuals listen and learn, but also how professions discover creativity, nations change economic and policy strategies, and possibly even for us as a species.


How it feels to have a stroke. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU

Stack O’ Books — Sources on Transparency and Privacy. Part Five

Stack O' Books


Assuming it to be possible, should organized knowledge, codified understanding, and wisdom play a greater role in the political processes than has so far been the case? Have we perhaps reached limits on how much wisdom can be systematized for use in policy making? Is there such a thing as “wisdom in the wrong hearts”? Evil rulers, cruel tyrants, self-seeking potentates may act wisely on their own behalf but to the detriment of others. If they have at their command a concentrated, organized source of knowledge, understanding, wisdom, then their hold is even harder to break. When is it preferable to use incomplete, imperfect knowledge, understanding, wisdom rather than waiting until such knowledge and its organization is more perfect, though by then the issues may be even more complex? (p. 16)

Information for Action (1975), by Manfred Kochen.

Comment: One of the aspects of Fred’s work that I most admired was his fervor for illustrating and documenting the potential role of information for good, for positive change, for advocacy, for social welfare, for action. Fred was such a sweet man, so generous and kind to others. This book was published before his most interesting articles in this area, but as a book, it still ended up in my pile of books. I was lucky to get a copy he had inscribed to one of his friends, so you can see some of that sweetness in the inscription.

After Fred’s passing, I watched how the Internet / Web evolved, took shape, formed itself. Over the years, I’ve gone in circles regarding his thoughts in this area. Fred believed that if the general public was given access to the same types of information used by policy makers, decision leaders, and our government, that regular people would indeed select the best information from what was available, and make high quality and well informed decisions on matters of both personal and national importance.

At first, I watched and waited for this to happen. But what happened instead was that all the high quality information was mixed up with biased and inaccurate information, some of which was designed to intentionally mislead. I became disheartened, and thought Fred had been naïve. Little by little, especially watching health information online, I came back around to something closer to Fred’s original optimistic view, which I see as aligning closely with the thoughts of David Brin on the need for diverse views, diverse information sources, and engaged conversations in order to get at truths that may not be popular or credible at the moment they are first proposed. I also see this as respecting the rights of the individual to select their own information sources, make their own choices, and then live with the results of those choice.

Inscription from Fred


The threat to privacy is perhaps the gravest danger of a centralized, coordinated network. Centralization also threatens free competition and the informed choices available to clients, thus weakening quality and competition. It also widens the distance between the server and the client, making servers less responsive to clients and more to one another. Insofar as the service system proposed by Long is aimed at helping the disadvantaged — i.e., those most in need of such help — it is plagued by the basic problem of distrust. … Coordination does not remedy this: those that want business either give poor care, are too expensive, or both. The rare good ones have more cases than they can handle. (p. 5)

Merely to desire to inform is to judge that information is valuable and ought to be more freely available. In fact, that is perhaps in itself the most significant judgment, especially at a time when governments, industry, and social organizations appear increasingly able and willing to impose severe limits on the rights of the citizen to be informed. The desire to provide unbiased information should not be construed as an indifference to values; rather it should be seen as a commitment to the recipient’s right to all pertinent data, as well as the right to make his own judgment. (p. 17)

Information for the Community, by Manfred Kochen.

Comment: Here you see it again. Another book by Fred relating to the same types of concepts, those that led to the birth of the Internet, and shaping our understanding of information access and use as a force for good. Fred really was a formidable thinker in these areas. He is still highly regarded by those who knew him, but is under appreciated by many currently working in spaces that Fred first shaped.

Manfred Kochen 1987

“Kitemarking” Quality & Credibility in Healthcare?

Good Housekeeping, 1950's Good Housekeeping, 2010
Good Housekeeping, 2010 Good Housekeeping, 2010

> BEGIN RANT <

This morning, catching up on my Linked In groups, I spotted this article.

Miller, Jennifer E. Bioethical accreditation or rating needed to restore trust in pharma. Nature Medicine 19, 261 (2013) doi:10.1038/nm0313-261 http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v19/n3/full/nm0313-261.html

It’s a good article, worth a read, and well intentioned, as is the case with most proposals of rating and ranking systems.

I’ve encountered many kitemarking or accreditation systems (“Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” type of systems) in the area of online health information. I’ve been watching how they’ve worked in the online healthcare environment literally since the birth of the Web. In my opinion, there is not one I trust. Why? Many reasons.

1) They are typically extremely expensive projects to run in terms of time and costs of analysis.

2) Because of the expense, many marks of approval end up charging for their review time. This backfires because it excludes small groups without a lot of money (this might not apply in pharma.) It also gives the impression that the “mark” or seal of approval has been purchased, thus devaluing its credibility.

3) They are slow. The initial review is slow and time consuming. Then they are slow to respond to changes in the organization or their information. Better Business Bureau reviews of charitable organizations has a good way of handling this, with expiration dates, and transparency about when their reviews were run, with the date of approval, and date the company should be re-examined.

4) These programs are often biased, or ill managed. Almost always they are one of these, if not both. Ill managed usually means a volunteer organization that is understaffed or underfunded. They mean well, they try hard, but it is too big a project.

5) Policing is a problem. Some organizations (especially snake oil salesmen) “steal” the mark and place it on their site without the right to do so, and without following appropriate guidelines for the mark’s use.

I don’t name names in public on these issues, because some of the most offensive stories I know of kitemarking abuse in healthcare involve individuals or organizations that are highly litigious, and sadly also highly trusted. They have lots of money or lots of lawyers or both. I don’t. So for years, even decades in some cases, I sit back, silently simmering over trusted sources of online health information that were trusted mostly because they said you should trust them, loudly and frequently. What I usually end up saying in public is, “Who watches the watchers?”, coupled with a recommendation to ALWAYS question healthcare information, both the information and who says it is good or bad, even if it is peer reviewed. You’ve probably already seen RetractionWatch, and are aware of the increasing rate of retractions in science, which is only one indicator that the current peer review system isn’t accomplishing quite what it was intended to do.

What frustrates me, having seen these systems either fail or mislead over and over again, is the conversations still happening NOW, with good-hearted, well-intentioned people proposing these are needed. I’ve been in several of these conversations lately. Sometimes, people didn’t know any kitemarking systems already existed. Sometimes they knew, but were aware the old systems had failed and thought they could make a new one that works. There is a lot of the “If we build it, they will come” mentality that surrounds these. That has NOT worked so far. The librarians, bless their souls, have tried hard to adopt and embrace quality indicators for online health information. They’ve tried to spread the word and inform the public. Librarians have tried to build their own guidelines for vetting online health information. Enormous manhours have gone into developing tools to help with this. Many of them are excellent, but … now well known. And regarding the semi-official kitemarking system, I’ve found even librarians to be mislead by some of these. I’ve had a number of quiet, offline, private conversations when I was particularly deeply worried by enthusiastic endorsement of some of these.

So, what is it that made the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval the standard to which all other quality ranking / rating systems aspire? The accountability. Good Housekeeping, to this day, says that if a you buy a product they’ve approved and it doesn’t meet the standards, THEY WILL REFUND YOUR MONEY.

Good Housekeeping Seal List: http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/product-reviews/seal/

About the Good Housekeeping Seal: http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/product-reviews/history/about-good-housekeeping-seal

Oh. Now, how would that fly in healthcare? Obviously, it can’t. You can’t refund someone’s limb, or pain, or life. How would it fly with information? Again, it can’t. It isn’t a standardized product with measurable units and production. You can’t guarantee that the person consuming the information digests it in the same way as the next person. There is no typical information physiology. Information consumption is too subtle, too personal, too individual of an experience, too filtered by local circumstance and prior experience and expectation.

Frankly, kitemarking without accountability is rather meaningless. If we can’t have accountability behind systems that endorse online health information, what you have is simply opinion. Some opinions are worth more than others. Some people like my opinions, but I make mistakes, too, and would not want to be held accountable legally for some quick blogpost I whipped up in a few minutes or a couple hours. I want people to question what they read, NO MATTER WHO SAID IT OR WHERE. Even if it’s me. And I want people to help each other, to talk with others about the things that matter, to build understanding as a community. I don’t want to put this process in the hands of some official organization. Not for health information. Build communities, not rubber stamps.

Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, 1930's

> END RANT <

Stack O’ Books — Sources on Transparency and Privacy. Part Four

Stack O' Books


As Larry Lessig says, “A political response is possible only when regulation is transparent.” And there’s more than a little irony in the fact that companies whose public ideologies revolve around openness and transparency are so opaque themselves. (p. 229)

The Filter Bubble (2011), by Eli Pariser.

Comment: The Filter Bubble is deservedly famous. Like several other books in this post, choosing one quote was a real challenge, there is so much of value in the work as a whole.


Eli Pariser: Beware online “filter bubbles” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ofWFx525s


The issue is whether or not research and development should continue to proceed solely in the direction of information-dispensing systems. By this we mean the providing of efficient procedures for dispensing pertinent and only pertinent information in immediate response to queries by researchers at the frontiers of their specialty. The stand taken here is to suggest an alternative goal for information-retrieval systems which deserves greater priority than the dispensing of information. This alternative is to assimilate and weld newly generated knowledge into a coherent overall image at sufficient speed, so as to counteract the tendency of knowledge to scatter centrifugally into isolated fragments; to impart understanding rather than dispense information; and to aim to serve primarily the interested nonspecialist and only secondarily the skilled specialist. Whereas the keyword of most enterprises and projects in information retrieval is access, the keywords proposed here as an alternative as evaluation and synthesis. (pp. xi-xii)

Growth of Knowledge (1967), edited by Manfred Kochen.

Comment: If you only get one book by Fred Kochen, make it this one. Look at this! 1967! And this was when he first collected thoughts that shaped his vision of what became the World Wide Web. In the 1980s, when I took a class with him, he still was requiring portions of this as readings, and it was still mind-blowing. We talked about this collection and the related concepts fairly often, since this is where both of us shared so much intellectual passion and excitement. I was able to share with him one additional piece that he wanted to add to this collection if he ever reworked it, which never happened, due to his unexpected death not long after. The piece I shared was a section of Gordon Dickson’s The Final Encyclopedia, around page 100 and for several pages following, where Dickson first describes the shape and function of the ultimate encyclopedia.

Manfred Kochen 1987

A Personal Timeline of Library Privacy & Transparency

Card Catalog

I’ve been hanging around libraries most of my life. I was the kid who spent so much time at the local public library that they ran out of books I was allowed to read. I read everything in the Children’s Room. Then I read everything in the Youth Room. Then they had my parents sign a waiver to allow me to read books from the “adult” section, and even the locked cases (Chaucer! Yay!). Even more bizarre, I was paying attention to how the library ran things, even if I didn’t realize I was doing so at the time. Following yesterday’s post, I wanted to share just a few of these memories of how, even just in my lifetime, libraries and librarians have encountered various issues relating to privacy and transparency, and always found a way to respond. Please note, these are being pulled from my memory, and I’m not planning to take the time to look up supporting materials or evidence. All dates are approximate.

1950s to Early 1960s

Library Charge Card / Checkout Card

My oldest memories of checking books out from the library were that you had to be able to write your name, legibly. That was the big divider between “baby” and “big kid.” The reason seemed to be because every book had in it a pocket and a card. When you wanted a book, you would take it to the Circulation Desk. The librarian (and in those days they really WERE librarians, not check out clerks or paraprofessionals!) would remove the card and stamp it with the due date, and also stamp the “Date Due” slip in the book. You would hand write your name on the card next to the date. The librarian would keep the card, and hand you the book.

When the books were returned to the library, the card would be returned to the pocket, complete with scribbled names. We never really thought anything about it, and most of the scribbles were illegible, so unless you already knew who it was, half the time you wouldn’t be able to decipher the name enough to figure out who had borrowed the book before you. This was especially true if some grown-up had written their name on the card in cursive! Completely unreadable. Sigh. But I was too young to care, yet.

Late 1960s

Library Charge Card / Checkout Card in Pocket

Sometime during the 1960s, I was delighted that the library switched to some new-fangled high-technology system that made things easier for everyone. We all got new library cards that had raised block letters with our name and mailing address. When we checked out the book (“charged” the book), the librarian would run our library card through a machine that would press the card against some sort of tape and print our name and address onto the tape. The tape came in two parts, like carbon paper, but with a sticky layer in between, rather like “sticky notes” now. The sticky part of the carbon layer would be stuck to the card and kept by the librarians until the book was returned.

As before, the cards were returned to the books after being returned, complete with the sticky tabs. I loved this. I was in late middle school, but was reading in the adult section of the library. I always read the book’s card before checking the book out. I quickly noticed that certain people tended to be interested by the same books I liked. I found that some folk checked out books I liked, and others checked out books I didn’t enjoy. I often made a decision whether or not to check out a book based on whose name was on the card.

I also kind of liked having their addresses. There were a couple a young men, a year or two ahead of me in school, who were, um, interesting. I liked knowing their addresses, what part of town they lived in, and what sort of books they were reading. Now, we’d probably think of that as being vaguely stalker-ish, but then I simply thought of it as research. ;) It never entered my mind that someone else could get the same information about me. I doubt I would have cared, though. I think at that age I would probably have been flattered. I was a scrawny, awkward, shy little thing. I would definitely have been flattered.

1970s-1980s

Library Charge Card / Checkout Card

Then the strips disappeared. Every now and then I’d find a date stamped on a card, but the cards were now empty. And we got yet another new high-tech library check out system. Hunh? What happened? I asked one of the librarians, who gritted her teeth and explained it to me.

Somewhere a disturbed young man had evidently set off some sort of bomb as a political protest of some sort. The bomb killed people. The young man was taken into custody. The authorities were researching the event, and everything to do with the young man. One of the ways in which they were researching him was going to his local library and asking for their records of everything he had ever checked out. This included such materials as The Anarchist’s Cookbook, which explained how to make bombs.

So far, so good, that all made sense. But the librarians immediately realized this had a huge potential impact that many people had not yet considered. It was almost as if they sensed the Patriot Act coming. These are public libraries. This is public information. They can’t deny information that they have to the proper authorities when requested with proper authorization. BUT. What if there was a police state, or a governmental agency that was in the business of watching private citizens, and then making decisions about whether or not they were dangerous? What if someone decided that EVERYONE who checked out The Anarchist’s Cookbook was a threat to the state, and should be rounded up? I had checked it out myself. I was a pre-pubescent girl at that point, but there was a lot of fuss about this book, and I was curious. Always curious. I checked it out, skimmed it, decided it was boring, and gave it back. I might find it more interesting now, since I am older and more aware of the importance it had as a symbolic pivot point in the shift towards a more transparent and open government, a key factor in the social and cultural dynamics of the 60s. But at that age, to me, it was boring. I was more interested in Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre. Should I be taken in by the authorities because I checked it out? Should I go on a national “watch list”? Of course not. But what if?

That was one example, but it was because of those “what if”s that the entire national community of librarians had gotten together and devised new methods of charging books to patrons, of keeping records, or eliminating records. The new strategy was this. The FBI could ask for any records you had. If you didn’t have the records, they couldn’t ask for them. Therefore, libraries would not keep permanent records of patron borrowing habits. Yes, it meant, the libraries no longer had statistics and metrics that would allow them to personalize offerings for particular patrons. I could no longer PROVE that I had checked out every single book in the kids room. But the library profession had decided as a whole that it was more important for people to feel safe about borrowing library books without having to worry about whether Big Brother was watching.

Of course, now we have similar scenarios with Amazon, Google, Facebook, and such. All this information we are using online, linked to our personal identities or our computers, and the records kept in detail. But it isn’t the LIBRARIES who are keeping the records and giving them to federal agents, I assure you of that.

1990s to 2000s

Library Charge Card Ripped Out

What the librarian had explained to me about the FBI and library records was a conversation that kept coming up. It came up in grad school. It came up when I became a professional librarian, and patrons wanted to know WHY could I not tell them the name of that book they checked out 6 months ago or last year, and want to find again now? I’d explain the whole “Big Brother” idea, and they’d go away frustrated and irritated, but supportive at the same time. They thought this was perhaps making a mountain out of a molehill, but they weren’t so sure that they wanted me to change it.

Then came 9/11. Devastating, earth shattering, heart breaking 9/11. And on the heels of 9/11 came the Patriot Act. And the libraries were involved again in protecting the privacy, rights, and freedom to read and learn of all patrons. Librarians were involved deeply, and bitterly, and at risk of their own lives, safety, careers, and freedom.

Mother Jones: America’s Most Dangerous Librarians:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/09/americas-most-dangerous-librarians

And it is still going on.

Patriot Act Extended for Four Years With No Change to ‘Library Records Provision’. By Michael Kelley May 27, 2011. http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/890795-264/patriot_act_extended_for_four.html.csp

Did you have any idea that librarians all around the United States of America have as part of their daily practice of their profession this dangerous balancing act? Any professionally aware librarian tracks this issue, the laws, the policies, the requirements. We read articles about anonymous librarians who have been “gagged.” We read articles about creative librarians who’ve come up with ways around the requirement of silence.

One of my favorites was a librarian who announces at every monthly board meeting, “There have been no legal requests for patron records.” Then, if she is ever asked, she will go silent, and the board will know. It happened. Many libraries emulated this once she thought of it, and there are libraries all around the country where we make forced silence obvious and evident by surrounding it with “sound” beforehand.

2010s

Hatcher Graduate Library

So, now we have this most interesting challenge to librarians’ freedom of speech happening in Canada. It reminds me a bit of the Third Reich and health care, where the doctors were required by law to report any “defective” children, so that they could be taken away from their families. The public version was that this would relieve the family of needing to devote time, energy, and resources to carrying for this child who is a burden on society. In reality, it didn’t matter if you wanted to keep your child or not, and chances are the child would die in the care of the state.

Here, the librarians (and support staff, volunteers, consultants, and anyone who works in any capacity in any Canadian federal library) are required to not talk, anywhere, to anyone, about anything, without the direct approval of their boss. The rules are pretty vague, in that you can’t talk in person, at a conference, as a teacher, in a blog, on Facebook or Twitter. The rules make it sound as if you better have a script written in advance, and you better not deviate. God help the student with a question in class, because you aren’t allowed to answer. The burden of informing the boss is borne by the employee. The penalties are borne by the employee. And it doesn’t stop when you leave your position. It’s horrifying. It’s ridiculous. It basically makes the entire role of being a librarian a joke. How can you be a librarian if you can’t answer reference questions without permission from your boss? Now I’m taking this to a silly extreme, because the guidelines lend themselves to such silliness.

But for me, looking back at the history I’ve observed in my own personal experience, I am willing to bet that somehow, the Canadian librarians will find whatever loophole exists in order to best serve their patrons, their profession, and their country, from the love of their hearts.

Should Our Neighbors To the North Start to Scare Me? Canadian Government Tells Librarians, “Shut Up”

Library Charge Card Ripped Out

Yesterday, a Twitter friend sent me some rather shocking news.

National Post (Canada): Federal librarians fear being ‘muzzled’ under new code of conduct that stresses ‘duty of loyalty’ to the government: http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/15/library-and-archives-canada/

According to the article, the new code of ethics is from the Canadian government agency known as Bibliothèque et Archives Canada | Library and Archives Canada.

Bibliothèque et Archives Canada | Library and Archives Canada: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/

Naturally, the first thing I did was to try to actually find a copy of the worrisome document. I tried browsing, and I tried searching within the site. I went to Google and did a search within the domain. Nothing worked. I found Codes of Conduct for other professions, archived from various publications, possible documents from several decades ago, but nothing BAC/LAC had authored recently.

A broader search brought up other articles expressing concern.

InfoDocket: Canada: “Federal Librarians Fear Being ‘Muzzled’ by Code of Conduct” http://www.infodocket.com/2013/03/17/canada-federal-librarians-fear-being-muzzled-by-code-of-conduct/

Eastman’s Online Genealogy Newsletter: New Lack of Freedom for Archivists and Librarians in Canada: http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2013/03/new-lack-of-freedom-for-archivists-and-librarians-in-canada.html

Canadian Library Association: CLA Govt Library & IM Professionals Network: Library and Archives Canada Code of Conduct: http://clagov.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/lac-canada-code-of-conduct/

Canada’s federal librarians fear being ‘muzzled’. By Margaret Munro. http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Canada+federal+librarians+fear+being+muzzled/8105500/story.html

Several of these included embedded copies of the document from Scribd, where it was posted by Margaret Munro, a science journalist.


LAC Code of Conduct Values and Ethics. http://www.scribd.com/doc/130187655/LAC-Code-of-Conduct-Values-and-Ethics

The document made it clear that it was shared only on the staff intranet. Personally, I find that worrisome for any governmental agency. The document also discourages engagement with social media, EVEN WHEN CLOSED ACCESS. The document fails to describe appropriate ways in which to engage positively with social media, instead focusing on censures. Here are the relevant paragraphs.

3.2.2 Duty of loyalty. With the current proliferation of social media, public servants need to pay particular attention to their participation in these forums. For example, in a blog with access limited to certain friends, personal opinions about a new departmental or Government of Canada program intended to be expressed to a limited audience can, through no fault of the public servant, become public and the author identified. The public servant could be subject to disciplinary measures, as the simple act of limiting access to the blog does not negate a public servant’s duty of loyalty to the elected government. Only authorized spokespersons can issue statements or make comments about LAC’s position on a given subject. If you are asked for LAC’s position, you must refer the inquiries, through your manager, to the authorized LAC spokesperson.

3.4.1 Access and use of electronic networks. LAC employees must bear in mind that social media are public forums and that posts on these media are at risk of being made widely available. Public confidence can easily be damaged by remarks that embarrass, criticize or otherwise comment on the actions of the Government, LAC, co-workers or other members of the public service. This is true whether such remarks are made from the LAC network or from an employee’s personal account. Employees should refer to Treasury Board’s Guideline for External Use of Web 2.0.

Right there, with that, they’ve made it legally impossible for government librarians in Canada to participate in Twitter chats, as I do several times a week. They’ve made it impossible to answer reference questions received through social media unless taken offline and with the permission of your boss. But it gets scarier.

LAC Employee: An individual employed at LAC, including managers and executives, indeterminate and term employees, individuals on leave without pay, students participating in student employment programs, as well as casual, seasonal and part-time workers. Although they are not public servants, individuals on incoming Interchange Canada assignments as well as volunteers and contractors are all expected to comply with the requirements of the LAC Code of Conduct.

OK, so, this makes it sound as if I’d be held liable by this policy if I was “hired” as a guest speaker or contractor to advise other medical librarians in Canada and the hiring was done through the government. And I’d probably recommend to our grad students that they not take internships in Canadian government libraries.

Don’t think you could just quit your job, and then speak freely. The muzzle applies for a year after employment ends for some positions, and longer for others.

I won’t say we haven’t had similar concerns for US Librarians, but most of them were not as broad in scope or all encompassing as this is. And the units of USA government who have created social media guidelines seem to have done a better job than this. But all of that is a topic for another post. For today, read this document carefully and pray you don’t ever have to follow anything like this; watch conversations in your own enterprises and governments, and try to keep this from happening wherever you are.

Stack O’ Books — Sources on Transparency and Privacy. Part Three

Stack O' Books


A rough backroom brawler, [Vannevar Bush] inspired public support for pure research and helped to create some of the most terrible weapons ever known. The paradox of his career left him seeking a more benign, even avuncular image. Now the press helped him to construct one. This was no act of generosity; it was difficult for ordinary people to square how the finest among them could be both visionaries and killers, fiercely independent themselves and yet demanding of conformity in others. (pp. 355-356)

Endless Frontier (1997), by G. Pascal Zachary.

Comment: Vannevar Bush’s essential essay, “As We May Think,” electrified me when I first read it, close on the heels of the first article I ever read by Manfred Kochen. Together, they changed my world. This book tells the larger story around Vannevar Bush, giving the context that made his essay possible. I find it fascinating how his life encapsulated many of the conflicting dynamics of science communication with which we continue to struggle.


Vannevar Bush(1890-1973), Understanding American S&T Policy: the emerging crisis in historical perspective [Talk at KAIST(Prof. G. Pascal Zachary)] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82QHlhmoQXE


As standards for trustability continue to rise, the companies, brands, and organizations shown to lack trustability will be punished more and more severely. But the sting of the transparency disinfectant will be greatest when the wounds are new. Very soon, for competitive reasons, all businesses, old and new, will beging to respond to the increase in demand for trustability by taking actions that are more worthy of trust from the beginning — that is, actions that are more transparently honest, less self-interested, more competently executed, less controlling, and more responsive to others’ inputs.

Extreme Trust (2012), by Don Peppers and Martha Rogers.

Comment: The concept of extreme trust derives closely from David Brin’s work on transparency, and supports it, in a very earthy, realistic, and practical way.


Extreme Trust in Depth: Should trustability matter to healthcare companies? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i76FTLxSQoI

Stack O’ Books — Sources on Transparency and Privacy. Part Two

Stack O' Books


Bora: The main appeal of the Open Laboratory anthology to the bloggers is that it is a community-based project, and entirely transparent in its execution. … But there is something more to it than just how much bloggers love this book. It is seen as a bridge between the online and the offline worlds. Everyone involved buys extra copies to give to friends and relatives who are not as Web-savvy and may not realize what amazing writing transpires on science blogs. (pp. x-xi)

Jennifer: Far from being irrelevant , science blogging has emerged as an essential activity for science writers as we find ourselves with a professional presence on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+, not to mention “microblogging” platforms like Tumblr. And it’s become an equally essential tool for scientists themselves to connect and communicate with the general public. (p. xiv)

The Best Science Writing Online 2012, by Bora Zikovic and Jennifer Ouellette.

Comment: I love it when I observe similar thoughts being expressed by many different people before those ideas have yet hit mainstream. This signals the gradual emergence of a paradigm shift. In this series of books, the essays and authors they represent, the conference which gives them face to face time, and the enormous numbers of award-winning science books that come from these same authors and are birthed in part on their blogs, in these I believe I see the emergence of a paradigm shift in science publishing and scholarly publishing. Track this. They are important.


Open Science: Good for Research, Good for Researchers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFL0vbUOjfo


Influence, on the other hand, is often the currency that makes social processes work toward helping people attain what they value. Intellectual influences nourish and structure the growth of knowledge. Friendships help people obtain jobs, hearings from people in power, votes, advice, and so forth. “It is not what you know but whom you know that helps you succeed” is not all pejorative. People with great wisdom often also know and are known by a great variety of people. Among these are also included people with even greater wisdom. (p. 195)

Decentralization, Sketches Toward a Rational Theory, by Manfred Kochen and Karl W. Deutsch.

Comment: Fred Kochen was one of my mentors in grad school, and probably the one who most strongly influenced my vision of who I wanted to be and what I wanted to be able to accomplish in my career, the WHY rather than the WHAT or HOW. Fred was a true visionary, discussing, many decades ahead of their emergence, many of the issues that have become critical to our most important current debates on social dynamics and structures, information access, and more. He predicted the World Wide Web decades before it happened, and spent much of his career trying to build towards that. I have always found it ironic that he died the same week as the release of the first Web browser, Mosaic 1.0. He was a genius at collecting voices together to emphasize issues that would become important. This book, Decentralization, is one of those collections. Many of the most important ideas expressed in this book are ones he gather from or inspired in others. The thoughts that I’ve distilled from it coalesce in forms that I remember as being from the book, but which were never actually said there. I still find this an important collection.

Manfred Kochen 1987