On the RFID in Libraries blog, Laura has done a devastatingly good job of dissecting a Berkeley Planet editorial by EFF’s Lee Tien and tireless community gadfly Peter Warfield. She points out that, first, it’s misleading (it appears to be an “article,” not what it is, a bare step above a letter to the editor that would never make it into any reputable media source, and that microscopic lettering identifying it as “commentary” doesn’t make it better); and second, it’s factually wrong.
I’m in Laura’s camp on RFID, which makes at least three of us echoing Laura’s advice: “tread carefully.” (Lori Ayre, who you can follow at Mentat, is the third.)
I’m not knee-jerk anti-RFID, but as a librarian who has been manager of technology in several settings, if I were in a library that had books or similar physical items, I would question whether it was the right time or place to do RFID, given everything else the library could be doing. Particularly in an existing library, versus a library started from scratch (where RFID seems to make the most sense), I would also worry that I’d pour a lot of money into the conversion–a very expensive labor-driven process–only to have to decide about “RFID 2” in a couple of years, when the technology became better and less expensive. Ask the libraries that wired with Cat 3.
I’d also ask, given everything I could be doing with technology, why RFID was the priority. What are the low-hanging fruit? What would be best for the users? What could the library do with technology that would position the library better in the community? Even with an issue such as workers’ comp, I’d ask, can I go to a largely self-check model without going to RFID? One clerk per four stations, helping on an exception basis–if the argument is “repetitive stress is expensive,” in that model, where would the workers’ comp issues come in? As Laura asks over and over again, what are the ROI models I can consider before making this decision?
Nevertheless, Tien’s approach is wrong, purely wrong. He tried going after San Francisco Public Library, and they flicked him away. So he found a sidekick to help him–the best he could do is Peter Warfield–then found a library pushing forward in new directions–something that library hasn’t done in a long time–and exploited a situation.
Lee and his scummy behavior have done a good job of ensuring I won’t have anything more to do with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Posted on this day, other years:
- I'm a Big Fan of Fans - 2010
Thanks for the thoughts, Karen.
I do want to respond to your questions about “low hanging fruit”.
There are lots of things that you can do for the community with available funds and the technology that is out there. The question for us was, what can we do that will maximize our very limited staff resources and, what will reduce Worker’s Comp injuries to our staff.
Since that initial foray our ballot measure failed and now we must ask, “how do we keep the library open and available to the community at the same service/hour level when we have frozen positions for two years? And, how, with that reduced staffing model, do we keep from injuring workers even more?
We did, during our exploration period, strongly consider checkout with barcodes.
If you are aiming for 90% self-check, as we are, there are two problems with barcode self-checks. The first is that they are non-intuitive. Watch patrons using them at any library they have them. They struggle with lining the barcode up with the light, they become frustrated, they don’t use them easily. It is possible that over time patrons will overcome the frustrations but in our observations we haven’t seen that really happen.
The second reason is more intractable. If you want to achieve 90% self-check then all formats have to be self-check.
AV materials typically come with some sort of security on them in order to prevent theft. That security is usually some type of case. Who removes the case? It has to be the staff person. Libraries who are dealing with the AV issue, whether they are barcoded or RFIDed, average around 30% self-check. That wasn’t acceptable to us and actually delayed our decision to purchase RFID.
The RFID system that we are installing overcomes those problems by allowing the patron to unlock the case as part of the checkout process. In addition, our staff will be able to know that the item is inside the case without opening the case, a tremendous reduction in one of the motions that causes RSI. Barcoding wasn’t going to do that.
Our committee thought that those changes alone were enough to justify RFID over barcodes.
As to the changes to technology, well that’s the paralyzing fear, isn’t it? If I buy this now something better will come along and make this obsolete. However, if I don’t buy now how do I know the next thing won’t be obsolete as soon as I buy.
So, you educate yourself, you talk to the experts, you decide that what you are buying is worth the cost even if it means that you won’t be able to buy the thing that comes after. You try to use your community’s funding in the best way that you can.
Jackie
Bringing it back to what prompted my post, clearly you made your choices using a decision matrix based on your library’s situation and needs, and your experience as an administrator. In your situation, I might make exactly the same decisions–or not. (Though I don’t think anyone would describe me as being afraid of new technologies.)
What none of us need are backseat drivers exploiting a local decision and using dirty tricks to boot. I saw so much of that in the 1990s, when a library’s decision about Internet access would become fair game for national organizations seeking to further their own aims, which is what EFF is done, as if we as library managers don’t have enough going on without dealing with well-funded lies and utter bullshit. I still remember when David Burt implied I liked child pornography!
I don’t know what has happened to Lee Tien of EFF. In my opinion, he’s squandering enormous good will EFF has built up in the library world, on behalf of the wrong cause, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. It speaks volumes that he’s tilting at this almost alone.
Seattle Public Library uses RFID, and it has been an expensive fiasco. You have to scan the RFID’s on a pad, just like barcodes with a scanner. So what’s the difference? The barcodes were more accurate! It actually takes LONGER than it did with barcodes! Lord knows how much money they wasted on this boondoggle. Heaven help them if the mayor ever finds out…