I’ve now published two articles on policy issues for public libraries when offering WiFi to the public. I though I’d thought of everything. I should have known better…
Yesterday one of my students from a WA small public library mentioned that they require a library card number (or other temporary id number) to access the library’s WiFi connection. This caught me off guard as I’d never heard of this being done before. Granted, many lirbaries require some sort of login for the library computers for timing software purposes and/or to have a basic tracking system in case there is damage to the equipment. However, I’d never heard of requiring a login for the WiFi when the patron is using their own equipment.
I discussed it briefly with the librarian and she was unable to offer an explaination beyond the fact that since they did it with the library computers, they decided to do it for any computer that used their connection.
I thought about this overnight, and here’s my opinion:
- As a patron with a laptop, the last thing I want to do is to have to walk into the library and have to enter my library card number to use my laptop.
- As a visitor to a library with my own laptop I don’t want to have to ask for a temporary card to use my laptop.
- As a staff member of a library that received a lot of tourists (as is the situation at the library in question) I don’t want to have to give out temp ID cards to a large number of patrons whom will never get a library card since they’re not residents.
Am I off base here? Do other libraries do this and I’m just unaware of it? What do you think? Please leave a comment and let me know.
I have heard of other libraries doing this. I think the latest issue of Computers in Libraries has an article about a library doing this. I agree with you in that it is very anti-patron and certainly could be considered draconian. Check the policies section on the WebJunction wireless resources page for other ways libraries restrict wireless access.
A teenager insisting on accessing quite offensive pornography was recently a regular at the computers at one of our local libraries. Do you propose that others should be able to access and download child pornography and remain untraceable by the police by just going to the library ? Surely, it’s already going to be difficult enough to fight this evil in the coming era of mobile devices with totally removable memory and storage ?
At AADL, we require that users register a device with our system using their library card. They enter it once and the device’s MAC address is known to our system. These registrations are expired after a year. During that year, however, there is no need for a patron to use their library cards to get on.
Guest’s may obtain a temporary access number which gives them a registration that is good for one month.
In addition, AADL provides an online wifi/guest device management system that allows cardholders to renew/delete registrations.
As a staff member at a public library, my opinion is that it must be to ensure that everyone who uses the library’s internet connection is registered in case someone does something illegal using that connection and it is traced back to the library.
So Shawn, you’re saying that if the police come into your library you would tell them who, using their own personal laptop, was on your system at a particular time last week? You wouldn’t tell them who had that book out last week, I’m assuming, so why would you do that with the Internet connection.
To a certain point I understand requiring some sort of ID for using “library equipment” (to cover physical damage to said equipment,) but I would also expect that you would be destroying those records ASAP. Why should a patron have to identify themselves to use their own equipment? Surly you can’t expect the library to be held liable just for providing Internet access?
I come from the networking side. Yes, you absolutely should be able to tell who was using a given address on your network at a given time, whether its their personal hardware or yours. That audit trail is crucial both to make the case against miscreants and to prove the innocence of others.
Operating a service that is accessible to the general public also incurs legal responsibilities on audit – and indeed the capability to implement the equivalent of a wiretap when ordered to do so by the appropriate agency.