Confessions of a Mad Librarian

6 Years Later

Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:16:14 -0800

To start this, I am going to be entirely self-serving by quoting myself:

California has a large, well-organized state library, which maintains a catalog of material that the state has published, with information on how it can be accessed by other agencies and the public. A recent report on current efforts of state governments to provide permanent public access (PPA) to electronic information found that the state of California has made only inconsistent efforts to preserve access to digital information, despite the attempts of the state library: “Due to limited staff and other resources, it is often difficult for the state library to capture many electronic government documents.”
In a May 2003 catalog of California state publications, there was an entry for an e-commerce report published and placed on the state government Web site in PDF format in 2000. According to the catalog entry, the publication is out of print, but the PDF file was still accessible on the Web via IA. However, the PDF has since been removed from IA’s server.

In effect, the state of California is relying on a private nonprofit to provide public access to public information.

From "From Ephemeral to Enduring: The Internet Archive's Role in Preserving Digital Media"

Apparently, not much has changed from 7 years ago:

Posting documents online was meant to increase the public’s access to the workings of government, but it’s actually having the opposite effect. For years now, official government records created electronically have been vanishing. And while a June 21, 2009 University of California press release makes mention of “the wholesale disappearance of information,” no one seems to be able to quantify the extent of losses.
“The problem is, I don’t think anybody has done a scientific evaluation of exactly how many electronic-only documents of California state government are disappearing,” David Cismowski, the State Library’s bureau chief for library services, e-mailed on Jan. 7.

...

None of this is new. In fact, the deletion — accidental or purposeful — of state e-records has been going on a long time. This is made clear by examining two state reports, both released in August 2004. Ironically, despite the fact that they’re nearly six years old, the reports represent the most recent studies of the loss of government e-records.

-- From "Official state records are disappearing"

I'm glad the California Digital Library has stepped up to the plate with a crawl of the ca.gov domain. I'm glad the California State Library is still trying to keep track of state gov docs. And yet, I suspect it's not enough, that these efforts are like taking two regular-sized funnels and heading off to Niagara Falls.

Are crawls and catalogs enough? Can a repository model? Is there a way we can make gov docs have the same shelf-life as messages in Gmail? Or is this much ado about nothing and CA is comparable to other states in their retention and access to born-digital government information?

Happy World Fair Use Day!

Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:35:29 -0800

It's the 1st Annual World Fair Use Day. May it be the first of many ...

CLA Resolution on USA PATRIOT Act

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 07:51:26 -0800

Released yesterday:

October 13, 2009 • SACRAMENTO, CA - The California Library Association (CLA) has just announced a resolution calling on Congress to dramatically revise the up-for-renewal USA PATRIOT Act, passed hurriedly in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks.
Librarians have been front-line opponents of certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act since its passage. The Act has made it possible, under Section 215, for the FBI to request and obtain library records for large numbers of individuals without reason to believe they are involved in illegal activity. This jeopardizes the basic ethics of the library profession, expressed in the Library Bill of Rights of the American Library Association.

Expanding on the American Library Association's PATRIOT Act resolution last July, the CLA resolution goes further to address imminent First and Fourth Amendment concerns with Section 505. This provision grants the FBI broad authority to sidestep constitutional safeguards though use of National Security Letters to obtain information.

CLA Intellectual Freedom Committee chair, Mary Minow, a leading expert on library law, said, "It's past time for the blatantly unconstitutional aspects of this legislation to be removed from the books, and now is the opportunity for Congress to act."

Two sections of the PATRIOT Act are currently up for reauthorization, with sunsets at the end of December 2009, and librarians across the country see this as an opportunity to correct those provisions that attack basic civil liberties. CLA's resolution calls for Congress to allow Section 215 to sunset, to amend Section 505 to "include a clear exemption for library records," and in general to intensify Congressional oversight of the use of the Act.

CLA Resolution on 2009 Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act (PDF - 481k)

Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:52:42 -0800

From Kumar Percy Jayasuriya of Georgetown Law Library via GOVDOC-L:

You may have heard that some law librarians have drafted a petition to ask the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to enhance the search features of PACER (the database of federal judicial information) and to make it free for GPO depository libraries.
On September 11 Erika Wayne of Stanford Law Library, Terry Martin of the University of Texas Law Library, and I will deliver the petition to the AO's office as well as staff members from the Judiciary Committee, Appropriations Committee, and Senator Lieberman's office. Please take this opportunity to join hundreds of librarians and such legal notables as Jonathan Zittrain, Eugene Volokh, Tim O'Reilly, Mitch Kapor, Ellen Miller, and many others in this effort to update PACER.

As government documents librarians, please consider lending your voice to this effort to create more open government.

Please feel free to write any personal comments if you sign the petition. From the petition web site you can read some of the insightful comments and additional requests individuals have submitted when they signed. We invite your input.

You can sign here: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/improve-pacer

You can also see the number of people who have signed (830 as of this writing) and see the list of names along with any comments submitted.

Also, we recently posted a summary to our PACER spending survey on our Legal Research Plus blog. The finding are available at:

http://legalresearchplus.com/2009/08/28/pacer-spending-survey/

The Curious Case of West

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:45:04 -0800

West, now part of Thomson Reuters, appears to be having issues in marketing and outreach. Note the plural.

1) The American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) rejected West's proposed sponsorship of the 2009 Annual Meeting, in response to West/TR's continued refusal to participate in AALL's Price Index. [Personally ... wow, turning down major dollars in this economic environment? Bravo to AALL for putting its money where its mouth is, as it were.]

2) Both West & LexisNexis expend considerable funds, time and manpower to get law students hooked on their brands (and as a former law student, I am so appreciative ... thanks for the free Nintendo DS, LexisNexis!) For those of you who never been to a law school library, one of the bennies both companies provide are dedicated printers that print WestLaw/LN material for students free of cost. Very convenient, useful, addicting. But West has decided that a very few schools don't get this benefit, and pulled their Westlaw printers from their law libraries. Happily, West printers have been reinstated at the University of Puerto Rico law school.

3) And now there's the email. West sent out an email to attorney clients with a graphic of "librarian" eyeglasses and the following text: "ARE YOU ON A FIRST NAME BASIS WITH THE LIBRARIAN? If so, chances are, you're spending too much time in the library." Needless to say, law librarians aren't pleased.

So, really ... what's going on with West? Is this going on with other types of libraries? Other vendors? And what's the appropriate response from the library community?

Methodology, Part I: How to Score the Obama Administration's Information Policy

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:32:26 -0800

After hearing various piecemeal accounts of how the Obama Administration has been treating government information, it occurred to me that a score card could be a rather useful thing.

This is a big no-no in legal and academic writing, but I'm going to start with the caveats:

1) Truth be told, I think it's a touch early to be "grading" the Obama Administration on much. It hasn't even been 6 months since he was sworn in as President of the United States. And the executive branch of the government has a lot on its collective plate: 2 formal wars, a deeply troubled (and troubling) economy, and an international campaign against terrorism is just what we started with at the beginning of the administration and things haven't exactly slowed down since January '09.

Anyone want a conference registration to ALA?

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:18:21 -0800

My life is a little too frantic right now, and I've decided not to attend ALA 2009 in Chicago next month. Since the cancellation deadline has passed ... is there anyone out there who'd like mine? Not sure how many people see this blog, but if you are interested, please email: ms_eli@yahoo.com

Thanks!

Colin Powell and Transparency

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:01:54 -0800

I already did a rawblog of Gen. Powell's remarks at SLA2009. But it's taken me a bit to finally transcribe the following. The Q&A portion after Powell's speech was very short - only 3 questions. However, I got the chance to ask him the 1st question. Basically, I wanted to know what he thought about providing access to government data. And that's basically what I asked him, without providing specific details (I thought that would be too confrontational). He didn't quite understand what I was asked, so I repeated it. His answer, to paraphase:

You can't stop information flow eventually. He believes in maximum openness, maximum transparency, with reasonable limits for security, privacy, etc. But greater openness and transparency is good for society in the long run.
In government, there is a big problem with information hoarding, getting the information to where it needs to be ... there needs to be more information sharing among agencies. His own example of government wanting to keep too tight a rein on information: the military wanted to hobble GPS for civilian use - luckily, that didn't happen and GPS is all over the place (I think he said he had 3 in his car ... a Corvette ... ah, boys and their toys).

Information professionals need to push the envelope as much as we can to get information and data released and accessible to the public. Risk is inherent - pushing means getting pushed back. We need to work out how much risk each of us can manage. But the bias should always be towards sharing, towards transparency.

Rawblog: Dan Clancy from Google Book Search

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:10:35 -0800

SLA Public Policy Update - 6/16/09
Dan Clancy
Google Book Search

Quick overview of Google Book Search
Google's Mission
To organize the world's info and mark it universally accessible & useful

1 Consumer Product, 2 sources
Partner Program - working directly with publishers, permission granted expressly from rightholders
Library Project - working with libraries

Typical library collection
Public Domain
Less than 20%

Unclear/orphan works/out-of-print, post-1923

Definitely in copyright/in-print
Less than 10%

3 views: full (public domain), partner, snippet

Blending - adding Google Book Search results into the general search results.
Most books are getting discovered quickly, especially partner books

Google Book Settlement
Scope
The agreement settles existing US lawsuits against Google Book Search
Agreement is btw. Google and a class including all US copyright holders (authors, publishers, etc.) for books that Google has scanned or are intending to scan
Agreement only pertains to uses of these books in the US
includes intl books
does not include periodical/serials

Overview
Extensive process to notify rightholders of the agreement
Rightholders have choice as to their participation
* Opt out of the settlement
* Remove books from scanning
* Select desired access models
Google is authorized to scan, index & make non-display uses for all books
A set of Access models are defined for providing access to the content of the books
For in-print books, the access models are by default off, for out-of-pring books the access models are by default turned on.
Books Rights Registry formed as an indy org to represent rightholders and to collect and distribute income (held for 5 years)

Access Models

Preview Uses (current model)

Online Consumer Access
- Enable user to buy online access to single work
- Default pricing set by Google using algorithmic pricing model to maximize revenue for each individual work

Institutional Subscription
FTE pricing for universities and other groups to buy for their users

Public Access Terminal
One free on-site terminal for all public and university libraries in US

Additional models:
Print-on-demand, etc.

Expanding Access to Knowledge
Anyone, anywhere in the US will be able to search, preview & purchase millions of out-of-print books through Book Search
From snippet view (3 snippets only, user must get physical book) to preview & purchase (institutional subscriptions & public access service license)
Less people are hunting down the physical books, and they aren't easy to access

Additional Topics / Components of the Settlement
Books Rights Registry
- Claiming data
Research Corpus (text and book research methods)
Public Domain and Government Works
What happens if Google goes away
All the library partners have the right to get the scans of the books and find an alternative partner to make them available

Questions:
What does a hit on the Book Rights Registry mean?
The registry is a superset of metadata from various sources, but doesn't mean that the book HAS been scanned or WILL be scanned.
There is some underclustering of various editions of the same work

If a rightsholder wants to opt out, does he/she/it have to cite every title & edition?
No

How does the Google Book Rights Registry compare with what the Copyright Office is doing?
BRR is an independent rights database, but it does not supersede/supplant the registration info held by the Copyright Office.

Can international users access books via the GBS?
Google wants to provide access to international users of international books

The settlement was fostered to help develop a comprehensive rights database that will also help other providers
Google wants to foster competition and is pro open-source, open-access, open-s
The BRR is non-exclusive

Problem of orphan works bigger with photos, pamphlets, ephemera than with books, but Google still supports orphan work legislation

What does "85% access" mean?
Failsafe provision: certain services that Google has to make available - search, Institutional Sub, free terminal, Find in Library
If less than 85% of the books are not made accessible/available, then an alternative provider may step in and take

Who and what will decide what ends up available? How to deal with censorship?
Google has no intention to censor their material
Plans to make all scans, barring opt-out by rightsholders, available

Creative Commons?
Still figuring out a solution, but plans to recognize CC-licensed works for appropriate level of display/access

Government works?
Hasn't been fully displaying fed docs because potential liability over copyrighted works excerpted in a gov doc
Settlement allows Google to treat fed docs as being in the public domain

Google also working on making works available in different language and for those with "print disabilities"

What is the likelihood of libraries allowing other providers to scan works? Would those alternatives be covered by the Settlement?
There is lots of replication and there are other scanning initiatives. Google thinks this encourages more scanning initiatives and competition, but they would not be covered under the settlement

As material goes into the public domain, how will Google manage the change?
Google has already distributed the rights renewals registry for works between 1923-1960
Once material goes into the public domain, it's not part of the BRR ...
Still looking for a scalable method of finding more public-domain books

Google Book Search will become a monopoly because no one will be able to catch up (question from audience)
Google is investing in this and they believe that others should
They believe that this project is covered by fair use, and the settlement does not erode Google's position on fair use
There are other players in this,

What of privacy?
Privacy wasn't discussed in the Settlement because it didn't seem like the right conversation to hold with publishers and authors
The right way to do privacy is an agreement between Google and users
Libraries aren't rolling over the privacy issue, even with the current agreements
Finding a balance btw. privacy, security and user features
Google is still designing the system
Not planning to have different privacy policies with different organizations - engineering nightmare

What will happen with user data?
No individual authentication for the Institutional Subscription

Library trust towards Google - are we partners or parts of the PR campaign?
Google is used to having their products embraced by so many users so quickly
Will be working on developing relationships with partners and user institution

Details about the public access terminal?
It is a partial solution for access in public libraries.
1 terminal per building, minimum, per Settlement
The BRR may ultimately provide more
Will not be a dedicated terminal (i.e. only for GBS), but will be authenticated as the free access terminal

Pricing - what will keep the Institutional Subscription affordable?
Pricing needs to satisfy 2 objectives: 1) get revenue for rightsholder and 2) ensure broad distribution
Long tail product -- getting students to see and like the product, eventually become consumer purchasers
Google sees the brand being part of the bottom line, doesn't want to lose customer loyalty

Clancy: one of the things that's most exciting about this is the ability to expand the collections of libraries so that someone in Brownsville, TX can access some of the same material as a student at Harvard, Michigan, Stanford, etc. Hopes people will be encouraged to go to the primary source.

What is Internet Archive doing? Does the settlement affect what it's doing?
Most of what IA has scanned is public domain but has started scanning post-1923 orphan works. Google doesn't know what an ophan work is and doesn't want to create new ones.

What happens in 10-15 years if Google isn't doing as well?
The largest costs are the upfront/scanning costs, so the question in 10-15 years is whether Google will continue to provide access.

What happens with new works?
Will probably work with publishers via the partner program

Rawblog: Colin Powell

Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:10:59 -0800

Colin Powell - SLA Opening Session, June 14, 2009

Brought his team of info professionals from National Defense University

State Department 2001 - Powell's staff was still using Wang computers
44K computers bought
Every desk in every embassy & office got a computer
Would do inspections of whether staff were actually using the computers

It's a transactional world, information flies at the speed of light

Recommendation:
Clay Shirky - Hear Comes Everybody

Cites:
Flash mobs (see clips on YouTube)

"I'm born analog, I got me a $59 converter, and now I'm digital ..."
Grandkids won't answer email, Powell has to text/Tweet them ...

"Who still uses bookmarks? I don't use bookmarks, it's all in Google"

What does Powell miss about being Secretary of State? His plane.

Like us mortals, Gen. Powell has been dog-sniffed and wanded at the airport ...

Role of leaders is to embue followers, the people who get things done, with a sense of purpose and demonstrate passion for the mission of an organization ...

Leaders also need to know how to prune an organization

Trust is the essence of success in an organization

Crashing ...

Sun, 14 Jun 2009 12:00:45 -0800

I have a weird idea of fun. So I crashed the SLA Public Policy Advisory Council meeting. Lo and behold, it was fun, informative, etc. I'm not going to put any of the members, or Doug Newcomb, SLA's one-man band on policy policy issues, on the spot, so I just listened rather than taking notes.

But I am SO pleased at the increasing role and visibility SLA is taking on issues of public policy where libraries and access to information are a concern. Its mission is not as wide-ranging as ALA's advocacy, but it has a solid yet flexible platform, knowledgeable and engaged members on the advisory board, and a good dissemination point for its message via the Public Policy Connections blog.

If you're attending SLA2009, I know how jam-packed one's personal schedule can be, but if you can, PLEASE make time to come to the Tuesday Public Policy Update session, from 11:30 am to 1 pm @ Room 143A. Special guest Dan Clancy from Google Book Search will be speaking about the Google Book Settlement. Even though I work mere yards from Google (*grin*), this is unexpected access, and if you care about the issues surrounding the settlement, come give your imput!

In DC

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:26:38 -0800

Attending SLA 2009. Overnight flight, taking it easy today, conf. starts for me tomorrow with a tour of NPR.

Cloudy Texas

Wed, 13 May 2009 11:32:19 -0800

The Austin American-Statesman is reporting multiple threats to open records in Texas going through the legislature before the session adjourns:

Organizations representing news media and private investigators are armed with lists of scores of bills that each group says would unfairly and unnecessarily restrict disclosure of some governmental records.
Arlington private investigator Randy Kildow, president of the Texas Association of Licensed Investigators, said he's been playing defense throughout the session as his group monitors more than 100 bills relating to disclosure of government information. "Every one of them hurts," he said.

Advocates for open government say that public information is under increasing attack, particularly as records become more accessible via the Internet and people worry about privacy. Some open records advocates are calling for a study of the Texas Public Information Act, with an eye toward overhauling a law that was passed in 1973, long before personal computers and the Internet became commonplace in homes and businesses.

Ken Crews on protecting works

Tue, 12 May 2009 11:20:18 -0800

Thank you, Berkman Center!

Kenneth Crews, founding director of the Copyright Advisory Office at Columbia University, provides an engaging review of the issues affecting authors and creators of copyrightable works, from books, articles, lectures and class notes, to software, databases, websites, schematics, drawings, blueprints, renderings, movies, songs, lyrics, sculpture, choreography, landscape designs, and many other products of human creativity. As more channels become available for access to these works, the issues surrounding control and use are becoming ever more complex.

GAO on E-rate program

Sat, 02 May 2009 16:12:19 -0800

The Government Accountability Office issued a report earlier this week on the E-rate program. Their conclusions? Not so good.

A new study issued by the Government and Accountability Office this week concludes that a Federal Communications Commission program that subsidizes school and library Internet, telephone, and computer costs has no real system for assessing its progress. The FCC "does not have specific, outcome-oriented performance goals or longterm goals" for its Universal Service Fund's "E-rate," plan the GAO says. That means the agency can't determine how far it has come in providing Internet and wireless connectivity for the nation's schools.

The report is long and has several appendices. Interestingly, it does mention Internet filtering concerns as one reason why some otherwise-eligible public libraries have shunned getting the E-rate discount:

Internet filtering requirements. Public libraries may be reluctant to participate in E-rate because of the requirement that recipients of Internet access or Priority 2 funding install Internet content filters in accordance with the Children’s Internet Protection Act. Both of the nonparticipating libraries we spoke with cited this as a reason for nonparticipation, and ALA, based on responses to its survey, estimates that 34 percent of libraries do not apply for E-rate because of this requirement. One library official we spoke with said that Internet filters inhibit access to free and open communication. Additionally, according Internet filtering requirements. Public libraries may be reluctant to participate in E-rate because of the requirement that recipients of Internet access or Priority 2 funding install Internet content filters in accordance with the Children’s Internet Protection Act. Both of the nonparticipating libraries we spoke with cited this as a reason for nonparticipation, and ALA, based on responses to its survey, estimates that 34 percent of libraries do not apply for E-rate because of this requirement. One library official we spoke with said that Internet filters inhibit access to free and open communication. Additionally, according to this official, if adult users want to access blocked information, library workers have to take the time to manually turn filters off and then back on, which creates an administrative burden.

(Page 32-33 of the GAO report. Wonder who the unnamed library official is ...)