Um, next to none. Type in kids name> click on “recent”>hit CTRL-P> wait 10 seconds for printout.
Library material is scanned just like your groceries are.
This only works if the library’s computer system keeps records that detailed, though.
A librarian mentioned in an earlier post that most systems don’t keep track of a patron’s history–just what’s currently checked out. So depending on how the law is worded, would a library with such a system be forced to make a (costly) upgrade?
In our current library system, I can log into the system and access my child’s account. I can see what books he/she currently has checked out, what holds he/she has pending and what fines are currently unpaid. Since I am financially responsible for these items, why shouldn’t I be provided with this information? However, I have NO access to my child’s checkout history–nor do I think libraries should collect that information. It would make me extremely uncomfortable about my own checkout history. What if it got out that instead of checking out edifying tomes of great historical significance, I am actully reading sappy romance novels and fluffy mysteries? Oh, the shame!
I would think that the majority of parents wanting this information about their teenagers would be using this to track down missing books. If you were a control freak, there are much better ways to keep tabs on your teenager than to see a list of books already in their hands. This isn’t about what books teenagers are allowed to check out, just what right parents have to know what books they are responsible for–the original problem arose because of an overdue book.
Now just wait one freaking minute! I was under the impression that the law’s purpose was to allow parents to keep tabs on what their own children are checking out, right? If this is supposedly some sort of new fully automated system(which of course will cost money and man-hours to set up), than anybody can check on the records of any kid. 
Passwords man, passwords. The parent need only register once at the library and is then issued a password for the childs account. Pretty simple. And Im pretty sure the law would exempt libraries that CANT perform this service due to lack of technology. The tax-payers wouldn`t go for full upgrade of every library in the state.
I’m not at all convinced this would be unconstitutional, John Mace. I just don’t see it as:
- A good use of taxpayer dollars;
- A good use of legislative time;
- An efficient solution to a rare problem; or
- Harmless.
In other words, I think it’s a lousy, lousy idea for legislation. I posted early on the idea that parents could ask their kids for the titles of books they’d checked out, if there were a problem; if the kids balked, the parents could march the kids to the library and force them to request a list of books. Nobody pro-legislation has explained why these simple solutions don’t obviate the need for this proposed law.
Daniel
whuckfistle, what library system do you know of now that issues passwords for accessing accounts? I’ve never heard of such a thing. That would require an upgrade to library software.
Library budgets are zero-sum: if you require a software change, that’ll take money that could otherwise be spent on books.
Terrible idea.
Daniel
The poor children. They can’t do anything these days can they? Parents are quite the all knowing. Doesn’t anyone remember the days when you could keep your parents on the d l and they never really knew much? I blame the internet.
OK, so now we have an example, CRich, who can access what his children have currently checked out or reserved, but not the history. And is satisfied with that.
whuckfistle, I can see the point about exemptions; so do I understand correctly, that your point is that the library should not wilfully refuse what information on checkout history is viable to have available, as long as it doesn’t impose an onerous burden, as opposed to the library being obligated to gather and have all information? So, for instance, if practical considerations meant that one library can keep track 6 months back and another can keep it a year back, or another adopts a policy that at 0000 hours on the 18th birthday the record’s deleted irretrievably, all three are OK?
And one other thing – this would apply to check-out, only? If the kid reads a book in the reading room or gets some info from the reference librarian, would s/he be in the clear?
Actually, this is a good point re: Libraries keeping check-out histories. I like the idea that they don’t. Is there any reason that a library needs to keep this info once the book has been returned?
Wouldn’t this be an additional cost the library would have to bear? Are parents really that paranoid about what their kids are reading that they want to pay extra taxes or fees to cover this cost? Every “good idea” does not have to be implemented.
As others have already said, if you want to know what your kids are reading, try asking them.
CRich, welcome to the boards!
Most censorship/controversy issues at the public library involve parents telling other people what not to read. Conservatives don’t want Harry Potter on the shelves. Liberals don’t want Huckleberry Finn on the shelves. The logical response, in my mind, is to say “We have plenty of books acceptable for your child, pick them out, we’ll help, and let other parents pick out the books they want. Enough for all.”
I am going to make a clumsy attempt at parelleling censorship with the current debate. TVeblen put forth the Most Frequently Challenged Books. I am going to go out on the limb and say that the majority of parents do not mind if these books are on the shelf. They may mind if their child is reading these books, but not that they’re on the shelf at all. Yet, strong, nationally-organized, political forces are working hard to get these books removed from libraries completely. I don’t think most people care.
I don’t think most parents need a law in order to find out what their children are reading at the library. There are other ways to find out. Why this extreme way? And what will it solve? If a child is having sex or doing drugs or building bombs or finding out he’s gay, and his reading material reflects this, there are bigger problems for a parent to deal with–problems unsolvable by the public library. If an adult was doing these things, no other adult would have the right to pry. The “Won’t somebody please think of the children!?” argument is, I’ll be ungracious, merely a political tactic. Unless anyone honestly thinks subversion and corruption is going down at the library (Well, I think that. But I’m a librarian! No one else is supposed to know!).
I will admit the logical argument about censorship doesn’t really work when parents want to control what their own kids are reading, because I’ve always supported parents in this.
My mother can’t find out what I’m reading at the library now that I’m 24, or request my medical records, or my IM logs, without a court order which I (or my institution) would have a right to challenge. But children aren’t adults. They don’t enjoy the same rights, and while saying, “Okay, make it 14 or 12” is a nice compromise, the reality of redefining what it means to be a consenting adult is a lot harder than adjusting library bylaws.
I think the emotional argument is the only argument left. Restricting a teenager’s intellectual activities can be harmful. spectrum and I have both offered annecdotal, but concrete and true, situations where having our parents knowing what we were reading would have damaged us. Did we have a right to privacy then? Absolutely not. Did we deserve one? I’m not sure. But I believe this law will be more damaging to librarians than beneficial to parents, therefore I do not support it.
In other words, I agree with ** Left Hand of Dorkness**. Especially because he’s from Asheville.
here is why I’d want to know what my child is reading. ::shudder:: I’m with Guin on this. I think at 14 the kid should be able to decide for him/her self what they want to read. If they do want to pass this bill, I hope they include some money so the already financially strapped libraries don’t have to spend their dwindling funds on the hyperactive parents that will request reports once a week. But I don’t see too much wrong with reporting what the parents and legal gaurdians want to know. I do see it as legislation to cover bad parenting, but it’s not like I’d ever make the request.
Given how long libraries have been inexistence, on has to wonder why, all of a sudden, we have to bash liberals for wanting to maintain the age-old confidentiality rules. Given what’s on cable TV and the internet, and given how tough it is to get kids to read these days, why are libraries suddenly considered a problem.
Well, the meanings of liberal and conservative have gotten twisted around in recent years, because this strikes me as pretty damn conservative.
thought conservatives were the folks in favor of personal responsibility?
Shodan:
Well, all regulations are there to protect things that need protecting. It’s just that conservatives make a show about opposing government intrusiveness on principle, then turn around and violate that when it’s something that pushes one of their other hot buttons.
How about we agree to this measure in exchange for gun registration? There’s good reasons for that, too. Sure, we’re talking about kids as opposed to adults, but we’re talking about books as opposed to guns.
Again, most libraries do not keep patron histories. I do not know of any library that does, or any library software that has that function. With a circulation of hundreds of thousands of books a year (even in small systems like mine), that would be a huge amount of memory. And librarians don’t want it anyway; the vast majority of librarians are adamant about not keeping those kinds of records, and about patron privacy (at least for adults, if not for children). Now that the FBI is trying to get into library records, they are even more upset by the idea. In order to start this kind of thing, completely new software would have to be developed and installed, and good luck getting the companies to do that in the face of near-total opposition by their direct clients, the librarians–who are vocal activists for their causes.
Passwords, OTOH, are actually getting common. Even my pathetic little library has an online system in which I can type in my library card number and a PIN to access my current checked-out books, renew the ones I want to keep longer, and put holds on titles I want to get. Very handy–but not meant for spying on others’ records.
Kids who really want information without their parents’ permission will steal it or read it in the reading room–they already do. Ask any high-school librarian how many sex-ed books she buys every year, resigned to the fact that the kids steal the books because they’re too embarrassed to check them out, and she would rather they steal books and get what they need than put the books behind the desk, restrict access, and leave the kids in ignorance.
I don’t see it that way. I thought I addressed your concern with an example (registered mail) of how the library can ensure that parents, and only parents, have access to the info. No system is perfect, but that would appear to be nearly so. How do schools stop non-parental adults from accessing school records on kids? It’s the same thing, and the same solution.
As for the subpoena process, I consider it to be overly extreme to require parents to have to subpoena info about their own kids.
Were I the librarian, it would make more than a whit of difference. Since we’re talking hypotheticals, there might very well be instances when the kid’s life is impacted positively. For example, a suicidal kid who feeds his own depression by reading books that glorify suicide. I agree that it’s a poor parent indeed who has to get library records in order to figure out his kid is in trouble. But again, that’s not how I see the point of this law. We defer to parents’ judgement all the time, as we should, even though that allows all kinds of potential abuses. Abuses that might be damaging, but are not illegal. For example, we allow parents to keep their kids off of sports teams at school for any reason at all or no reason at all. Or to sign their kids up for little league even if the kid hates baseball and gets taunted by teammates because he’s a poor athlete. These are regrettable, but the simple consequences of liviing in a free society where parents, and not the state, are by default considered to be acting in the best interest of the child until proven otherwise.
I don’t think kids under the age of 16 (or whatever age you want to pick) have a right to privacy. A parent is legally able to search his kids room, backpack or whatever. That’s far more intrusive than seeing the kids library check-out list.
Were we talking about adults, I would absolutely agree with you.
JohnMace said.
**"I don’t think kids under the age of 16 (or whatever age you want to pick) have a right to privacy. A parent is legally able to search his kids room, backpack or whatever. That’s far more intrusive than seeing the kids library check-out list.
Were we talking about adults, I would absolutely agree with you."**
I completely agree.
What is it that parents are so afraid of their kids reading anyway? As far as I know, most libraries don’t have the Anarchist’s Cookbook available for checkout. Doesn’t this really boil down to books about sex and religion? Most parents aren’t really concerned about their children getting a book about French cooking, right?
In the case of sex, we aren’t talking about past issues of Hustler magazine, we are talking about intellectual material on the subject. These books aren’t usually available to younger children in the first place. So we are talking about teenager getting a book on sex. Oooooh. I highly doubt that the world is going to end because a teen gets a book dealing with sex. They have probably already been exposed, through their friends, to stuff that would make any library book pale in comparison. And if they feel that their parents are going to check up on them, they will just find another way to get the information.
Considering how hard it can be to get a kid to enjoy reading in this day and age, shouldn’t we be happy the kid even wants to read about something on their own free time? Letting them know that their every move is being watched, IMO, is going to act a deterrent. They might just decide to do something else with their time.
whuckfistle:
Throughout history and across different cultures, we have tended to assume that parents have authority over and responsibility for their children; that children will (to varying degrees) talk back, disobey, be unruly, go against their parents’ wishes; that parents will (to varying degrees) shut down some or all of this dissent using close observation and various forms of coercion.
Mostly, we do not like the extremes: child/parent relationships where the parents are unaware of their childrens’ behavior and/or do nothing to channel it in responsible directions are considered abusive, but so are child/parent relationships where the parents remove all vestiges of uncontrolled movement in their children’s behavior, observing every fragment of it and eliminating all wriggle room.
Most people in America would approve of parents issuing some general guidelines about appropriate reading material to their children. Many would find it at least borderline acceptable, if not necessarily advisable, for parents to take away reading material they deem inappropriate if they find it in their kids’ possession. But to make the entire public world an extension of parental authority is more than most folks would condone.
I disagree. Whether or not you think this is a good law, I’d be willing to bet it would pass in any referendum in any state where it was on the ballot. Do you think it would be defeated? (And let’s not get into unfundend mandates as an excuse-- assume that requesting parents foot the bill for administrative costs.)