Reading Response #5: 1984 or 2008?

Though the three assigned articles address disparate types of technology, they all raise concerns about the economics and functionality of these technologies in modern libraries.

Local Area Networks, or LANs, connect a small geographic area and have a higher rate of transfer but Campus Area Networks (CANs), Metropolitan Area Networks (MANs) and Wide Area Networks (WANs) are able to link together a larger physical radius, albeit at a slower transfer rate. Currently, libraries provide digital access to the Internet and proprietary online catalogues and databases. If the future of information in the digital age is networked information structures -- not just information accessible via the Internet -- how are they to be physically networked? Another concern is that although these reference resources are for public benefit, a significant portion of these documents originate in academic, collegiate, research and public institutions. Who would shoulder the brunt of financial responsibility and safety? If it is these underfunded institutions, that cost would add to the already sizeable tab that includes hardware, software, data migration, storage and digitization.

A viable option could be governmental or privately owned or underwritten organizations with a public interest but that still raises issues of the safety of transferred information, property rights management, and minority control over a service for the public majority.

Karen Coyle’s article “Management of RFID in Libraries” also addresses concerns of finance and security with technology. In the context of libraries, RFID products are capable of monitoring the location and status of an item. While the technology would improve patron satisfaction and reduce the amount of time spent tracking materials, the sheer number of tags necessary for even a small-sized library is substantial. Then there is the topic of privacy. RFID tags were originally designed for retail where items are purchased and are removed from inventory permanently. Libraries, on the other hand, would have a revolving clientele and inventory which means that there would be an extensive and permanent record of a patron’s account. Currently, barcode technology allows an item to be checked out but when it is returned, it is usually deleted from a patron’s account. Because RFID software originated in the retail industry, it would need to be adapted to a library but considering that it is still undergoing transformations and doesn’t offer a stable platform, libraries should be cautious. In fact, in regards to all technology, libraries must put patrons above the desire to keep up with the digital age.