A recent discussion on a work listserve had gotten me thinking about the "allow location" setting that many have on their electronic devices.
It's kinda cool. Let's your friends know where you are eating, what movies you think are cool, generally if you visit anyplace that they think is cool enough to try themselves.
It also can give those less desirable aquaintances your location so if they are feeling lonely or stalkerish they can track you down. You're at a restaurant having a peaceful dinner when lonely Bob walks in becuase he just happened to see on Facebook that you were there and stops at your table to say hello. 20 minutes later, it's really obvious ol' Bob wants to join your party - that's not gonna happen - your dinner companion is royally hacked off, your food cold, and you are still trying to end the conversation as politely as possible.
The work discussion was whether to allow your Bookmobile location to be published on the Bookmobile Facebook page. Sounds fine because it is a public "building" and so the public should be able to find it. Right? The concern came up when bookmobiles are parked at public schools. Should they share this location and allow the general population to mingle freely with school children on school property? After all schools have locked doors now-a-days.
Does anyone else take the time to turn "allow location" on or off depending on the situation? Am I just being paranoid? Does having your location out there at all times not bother anyone else?
Monday, December 12, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Explain to me why this is a problem.
Goldman Sachs has established a corporate policy banning the use of social networking sites, specifically Facebook. At work. Don’t they have the right to expect employees that they are paying to actually work at work?
There was a blogger on the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) who begged to differ. He claims that the controversy may have come up because Goldman Sachs recently invested &450 million in Facebook. But he also questions effect that such corporate policies could have on free speech.
LOTS of employers, mine included, ask that employees stay off of social networking sites during work hours. I think that is totally within their rights. But Sachs actually blocked the sites and maybe that’s the problem. People complained because now they can’t even sneak around and do it. I find that it is usually the ones breaking the rules that complain most bitterly when they are enforced.
The Washington Post has a policy that bans, “writing, tweeting, or posting anything – including photographs or video – that could be perceived as reflecting political, racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism…This same caution should be used when joining, following, or friending any person or organization online.” Not sure if they mean at work or anytime.
At work, yes-siree I agree. Out side of work…well that’s where it gets sticky for me. See my library has this little clause in its policy that even when we are outside of the library we are still library employees and are therefore representatives of the library at all times. The Washington Post has the same spiel. I’m not sure this would be considered legal if challenged because it would be in direct violation of a person’s First Amendment Rights.
Do I think it smart to talk about your employers in a negative way? No! Especially if you have friended some of them. That just makes you, well, not so smart in my eyes. I personally know someone who lost her job indirectly due to social networking. I say indirectly because the social networking stuff was simply the last straw in a long list of troubles. But you do have the right to say and feel and think what you like even if your employer doesn’t like it. Question is do they have the right to fire you over it IF it happens outside of the workplace?
Back to inside the workplace. In 2007 a Sachs employee received the following memo:
It has come to our attention that you have been spending a considerable amount of time on a website known as ‘The Facebook.’ This is unacceptable since firm regulations do not permit usage of social networking sites…The combines total usage time over the past six months has now exceeded 500 hours (the equivalent of over 4 hours daily), which we feel would normally be sufficiently high to render us duty-bound to inform your manager.
Please tell me you agree that the company has the right to fire an employee under those conditions.
Levendowski, Amanda. "Chilling Effects on Social Media." Blogging Censorship.
National Coalition Against Censorship, June 8, 2011 . Web. 15 Jun 2011.
Carr, Austin. "Facebook Still Banned at Goldman Sachs, $450 Million Investment Be
Damned ." Fast Company, Jan 5, 2011 . Web. 15 Jun 2011
Kramer, Staci D. "WaPo’s Social Media Guidelines Paint Staff Into Virtual Corner; Full
Text of Guidelines." PaidContent: The Economics of Digital Content Sept. 27, 2009:
n. pag. Web. 15 Jun 2011.
There was a blogger on the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) who begged to differ. He claims that the controversy may have come up because Goldman Sachs recently invested &450 million in Facebook. But he also questions effect that such corporate policies could have on free speech.
LOTS of employers, mine included, ask that employees stay off of social networking sites during work hours. I think that is totally within their rights. But Sachs actually blocked the sites and maybe that’s the problem. People complained because now they can’t even sneak around and do it. I find that it is usually the ones breaking the rules that complain most bitterly when they are enforced.
The Washington Post has a policy that bans, “writing, tweeting, or posting anything – including photographs or video – that could be perceived as reflecting political, racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism…This same caution should be used when joining, following, or friending any person or organization online.” Not sure if they mean at work or anytime.
At work, yes-siree I agree. Out side of work…well that’s where it gets sticky for me. See my library has this little clause in its policy that even when we are outside of the library we are still library employees and are therefore representatives of the library at all times. The Washington Post has the same spiel. I’m not sure this would be considered legal if challenged because it would be in direct violation of a person’s First Amendment Rights.
Do I think it smart to talk about your employers in a negative way? No! Especially if you have friended some of them. That just makes you, well, not so smart in my eyes. I personally know someone who lost her job indirectly due to social networking. I say indirectly because the social networking stuff was simply the last straw in a long list of troubles. But you do have the right to say and feel and think what you like even if your employer doesn’t like it. Question is do they have the right to fire you over it IF it happens outside of the workplace?
Back to inside the workplace. In 2007 a Sachs employee received the following memo:
It has come to our attention that you have been spending a considerable amount of time on a website known as ‘The Facebook.’ This is unacceptable since firm regulations do not permit usage of social networking sites…The combines total usage time over the past six months has now exceeded 500 hours (the equivalent of over 4 hours daily), which we feel would normally be sufficiently high to render us duty-bound to inform your manager.
Please tell me you agree that the company has the right to fire an employee under those conditions.
Levendowski, Amanda. "Chilling Effects on Social Media." Blogging Censorship.
National Coalition Against Censorship, June 8, 2011 . Web. 15 Jun 2011.
Carr, Austin. "Facebook Still Banned at Goldman Sachs, $450 Million Investment Be
Damned ." Fast Company, Jan 5, 2011 . Web. 15 Jun 2011
Kramer, Staci D. "WaPo’s Social Media Guidelines Paint Staff Into Virtual Corner; Full
Text of Guidelines." PaidContent: The Economics of Digital Content Sept. 27, 2009:
n. pag. Web. 15 Jun 2011.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Wow!
Talk about getting revenge on an ex.
Apparently a man was angry with his ex and purchased a billboard that said, “This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!"
As you can imagine the girlfriend is suing over privacy rights and her friends are claiming that she had a miscarriage not an abortion but that it is nobody’s business but her own. His lawyers are claiming First Amendment Rights, that this man has the right to express himself anyway he likes no matter how offensive to some.
I wonder how the courts will rule though when his rights clearly violate hers.
But then again, there is no personal information about the mother on the sign. No name, address, or any other information to identify her unless you knew this guy and knew who he was dating.
As an aside it appears that The Coalition About Needed Information is only present on Facebook. I can’t tell too much about it but the posts seem to indicate that this man may have started it and is now going to take it down saying the billboard was the coalition’s first and last act.
It would seem that he works at or owns GEFNET, a computer sales company, who sponsored the billboard, which to me might be a misuse of company funds. I don’t know enough about the law to know for sure.
Anyhow, I was amazed and continue to be amazed at the ways people find to hurt, embarrass, harass, or outright destroy another person’s reputation. Whether the courts rule in his favor or not it sure seems wrong to me.
Associated Press, . "Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard." Yahoo News. N.p.,
Jun 7, 2011. Web. 8 Jun 2011.
Talk about getting revenge on an ex.
Apparently a man was angry with his ex and purchased a billboard that said, “This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!"
As you can imagine the girlfriend is suing over privacy rights and her friends are claiming that she had a miscarriage not an abortion but that it is nobody’s business but her own. His lawyers are claiming First Amendment Rights, that this man has the right to express himself anyway he likes no matter how offensive to some.
I wonder how the courts will rule though when his rights clearly violate hers.
But then again, there is no personal information about the mother on the sign. No name, address, or any other information to identify her unless you knew this guy and knew who he was dating.
As an aside it appears that The Coalition About Needed Information is only present on Facebook. I can’t tell too much about it but the posts seem to indicate that this man may have started it and is now going to take it down saying the billboard was the coalition’s first and last act.
It would seem that he works at or owns GEFNET, a computer sales company, who sponsored the billboard, which to me might be a misuse of company funds. I don’t know enough about the law to know for sure.
Anyhow, I was amazed and continue to be amazed at the ways people find to hurt, embarrass, harass, or outright destroy another person’s reputation. Whether the courts rule in his favor or not it sure seems wrong to me.
Associated Press, . "Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard." Yahoo News. N.p.,
Jun 7, 2011. Web. 8 Jun 2011.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Sony and Epsilon finally agreed to testify to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. They wanted answers as to why millions of people had their personal e-mails exposed and wanted to know why Sony seemed to take so long to let it's customers know about the breach. You can read the full questions here in the letter addressed to Sony Chairman Kazuo Hirai.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/technology/20110428-sony-letter.pdf
This drama was all started by George Hotz, who first unlocked the iPhone, and then hacked Sony in protest of the company removing a function that allowed other systems to be used with Sony over a year ago. Hotz decided to put them back and teach everyone who wanted to know how to do it as well. It's called jailbreaking.
http://technologizer.com/2011/04/11/sony-george-hotz-settle-ps3-hacking-lawsuit/
Hotz denies all involvement in the recent hack and say to those responsible "Don't be a [d*ck] and sell people's information."
http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-entertainment-brief/55631-george-hotz-comments-on-the-psn-debacle
I actually have two questions, one related to each case.
1. Do you think the government should step in and regulate these large companies to better protect our privacy basically saying that it is the companies faults that they were hacked?
2. Do you think Hotz and others have the right to reinstall something that Sony removed since it had formerly been an advertised feature of the Playstation system simply because they have the knowledge to do so? Does this mean they are protected under the First Amendment?
And in an unrelated question, does he look like a child to anyone but me?
Sources:
Bono Mack, Mary, and G.K. Butterfield . "To Hirai, Kazuo." April 29, 2011. Congress
of the United States House of Representatives. Web.
Newman, Jared. "Sony and George Hotz Settle PS3 Hacking Lawsuit." Technologizer.
Time.com, April 11, 2011. Web. 3 Jun 2011.
Luttrell, Mike. "George Hotz comments on the PSN debacle." TG Daily April 28, 2011.
Web. 3 Jun 2011.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/technology/20110428-sony-letter.pdf
This drama was all started by George Hotz, who first unlocked the iPhone, and then hacked Sony in protest of the company removing a function that allowed other systems to be used with Sony over a year ago. Hotz decided to put them back and teach everyone who wanted to know how to do it as well. It's called jailbreaking.
http://technologizer.com/2011/04/11/sony-george-hotz-settle-ps3-hacking-lawsuit/
Hotz denies all involvement in the recent hack and say to those responsible "Don't be a [d*ck] and sell people's information."
http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-entertainment-brief/55631-george-hotz-comments-on-the-psn-debacle
I actually have two questions, one related to each case.
1. Do you think the government should step in and regulate these large companies to better protect our privacy basically saying that it is the companies faults that they were hacked?
2. Do you think Hotz and others have the right to reinstall something that Sony removed since it had formerly been an advertised feature of the Playstation system simply because they have the knowledge to do so? Does this mean they are protected under the First Amendment?
And in an unrelated question, does he look like a child to anyone but me?
Sources:
Bono Mack, Mary, and G.K. Butterfield . "To Hirai, Kazuo." April 29, 2011. Congress
of the United States House of Representatives. Web.
Newman, Jared. "Sony and George Hotz Settle PS3 Hacking Lawsuit." Technologizer.
Time.com, April 11, 2011. Web. 3 Jun 2011.
Luttrell, Mike. "George Hotz comments on the PSN debacle." TG Daily April 28, 2011.
Web. 3 Jun 2011.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
It's a book, Jackass
From a December, 2010 article on Gloucester Times.com I read about a school in Rockport who decided not to distribute copies of It's a Book by Lane Smith to it's first-graders.
It originally hit my radar because I thought it might have been Rockport, IN. I was excited becasue I know people there and could talk to them about the case directly. You know, get a first-hand account. But alas, it wasn't.
This book has come up in all of my classes since it was released so not wanting to break what is apparently becomming tradition I am bringing it back for this class. The case is this. As a part of a reading program first grade students at Rockport Elementary School are provided with a free book. It was going to be It's a Book until it was read and the Superintendant decided to only distribute it to those whose parents' give their permission and after changing the last word. Don't know how that was done. I can only assume an alternative title was then selected.
Gloucester, MA also decided the book might raise some problems so they distributed permission slip to parents explaining the book and asking whether or not they wanted their children to have a copy.
It's a great book about the way electronic material is changing our perceptions of what a book is. I personally really like it. I also am personally disappointed that the author decided to use the word "jackass" instead of donkey considering his selected audience but I do appreciate the wonderful message of the book. You can argue all you want about the fact that jackass is another name for donkey. But in context of the book, it is a thinly veiled disparaging remark about those who are losing sight of what a "real" book is.'
One of the arguments made was that kids hear worse from the Simpsons and Harry Potter. What a copout argument. Saying that they're going to hear it anyway so it's no big deal isn't, in my opinion, an excuse to take the decision out of parents's hands.
Do you think the schools made a mistake?
Is this book appropriate for first-graders?
My opinion: Permission slips are fine. They are a good way to allow parent's to decide what is best for their children. I don't agree that the book should have been altered in any way. That violates copyright and probably other author's rights.As to whether it's appropriate for first grade, that is definately up to individual parents. In this case I think the schools were within their rights to pull the item until they received permission.
It originally hit my radar because I thought it might have been Rockport, IN. I was excited becasue I know people there and could talk to them about the case directly. You know, get a first-hand account. But alas, it wasn't.
This book has come up in all of my classes since it was released so not wanting to break what is apparently becomming tradition I am bringing it back for this class. The case is this. As a part of a reading program first grade students at Rockport Elementary School are provided with a free book. It was going to be It's a Book until it was read and the Superintendant decided to only distribute it to those whose parents' give their permission and after changing the last word. Don't know how that was done. I can only assume an alternative title was then selected.
Gloucester, MA also decided the book might raise some problems so they distributed permission slip to parents explaining the book and asking whether or not they wanted their children to have a copy.
It's a great book about the way electronic material is changing our perceptions of what a book is. I personally really like it. I also am personally disappointed that the author decided to use the word "jackass" instead of donkey considering his selected audience but I do appreciate the wonderful message of the book. You can argue all you want about the fact that jackass is another name for donkey. But in context of the book, it is a thinly veiled disparaging remark about those who are losing sight of what a "real" book is.'
One of the arguments made was that kids hear worse from the Simpsons and Harry Potter. What a copout argument. Saying that they're going to hear it anyway so it's no big deal isn't, in my opinion, an excuse to take the decision out of parents's hands.
Do you think the schools made a mistake?
Is this book appropriate for first-graders?
My opinion: Permission slips are fine. They are a good way to allow parent's to decide what is best for their children. I don't agree that the book should have been altered in any way. That violates copyright and probably other author's rights.As to whether it's appropriate for first grade, that is definately up to individual parents. In this case I think the schools were within their rights to pull the item until they received permission.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
What’s an employee to do?
Hypothetical situation:
Several female shelvers have complained about a patron who follows them around in the stacks. At first it seemed harmless but now the man specifically crouches down or tiptoes to try and catch a glimpse or outright ogle certain portions of their anatomy. He tries to catch them alone in the elevators and the other day a shlever found herself cornered by the man in a dead end shelving unit.
The man’s behavior is escalating and even the police officers have asked that the man be banned. He has a prior record of assault and rape. Library officials have decided that the man hasn’t done anything legally wrong sine he hasn’t physically touched someone. Yet. So they refuse to ban him stating that his First Amendment Rights would be violated if he was banned on hearsay and denied access to information.
Since we aren’t asking that he be arrested he shouldn’t have to physically touch someone to be removed. Isn’t the fact that he is harassing these women enough?
My question to you all is whether you agree with that. Do First Amendment Rights really overshadow the protection of someone else? Do we really have to wait until someone is hurt or worse before we interfere? If yes, with no other considerations I may be in the wrong profession.
Along those lines shouldn’t we, as employees expect that our rights will be protected as well?
Several female shelvers have complained about a patron who follows them around in the stacks. At first it seemed harmless but now the man specifically crouches down or tiptoes to try and catch a glimpse or outright ogle certain portions of their anatomy. He tries to catch them alone in the elevators and the other day a shlever found herself cornered by the man in a dead end shelving unit.
The man’s behavior is escalating and even the police officers have asked that the man be banned. He has a prior record of assault and rape. Library officials have decided that the man hasn’t done anything legally wrong sine he hasn’t physically touched someone. Yet. So they refuse to ban him stating that his First Amendment Rights would be violated if he was banned on hearsay and denied access to information.
Since we aren’t asking that he be arrested he shouldn’t have to physically touch someone to be removed. Isn’t the fact that he is harassing these women enough?
My question to you all is whether you agree with that. Do First Amendment Rights really overshadow the protection of someone else? Do we really have to wait until someone is hurt or worse before we interfere? If yes, with no other considerations I may be in the wrong profession.
Along those lines shouldn’t we, as employees expect that our rights will be protected as well?
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Just a Question...
During the first week of class my discussion group focused on the Ethics of Librarianship. Some really interesting side topics came up and I wanted to get a broader perspective by opening this question up to all of you who might have focused on Reconsiderations. This is simply for my own personal edification although I think it would make an interesting opinion piece.
Do librarians have Freedom of Speech in the workplace?
And does Freedom of Speech include Freedom of Expression?
Do librarians have Freedom of Speech in the workplace?
And does Freedom of Speech include Freedom of Expression?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)