Posted on 02/05/2007 9:17:13 PM PST by plan2succeed.org
LANCASTER, Ohio — Police tried to identify a woman they pulled from an icy river by checking on her library card, but the library would not cooperate, citing a policy set by its board.
The woman, who was treated for unknown injuries, was carrying her library card on a key ring but had no other identification when a passer-by found her in the Hocking River on Thursday night, police said.
So a dispatcher, then an officer called the Fairfield County District Library and were told the library could not release the information without a court order. The woman later was identified as Sheila Springer, 51, by someone at the local hospital where she was taken.
The woman was later taken to Grant Medical Center in Columbus, where she would not allow information to be released on Friday. The hospital said Saturday they had no information on Springer. There was no telephone listing for her. Police did not know how she got in the river.
The library's board set the policy of withholding information about cardholders, library Director Marilyn Steiner said Saturday.
However, Steiner said that after being contacted about the police request, she told her staff they could release the information if they were sure the caller was a law enforcement officer and it was "a matter of life or death." Steiner said the library was prepared to release the woman's identity about 10 minutes after the first call by police, but was told it was no longer necessary.
Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. I CLAIM EXCEPTION UNDER COPYRIGHT FAIR USE PROVISIONS.
If it's a life-or-death situation, then going Jack Bauer on the librarian might be acceptable.
What children?!?
And I'd like to see librarians using stunguns on "muawiyah"s. Maybe it'll shock some sense into you... although I doubt it.
Ever since I saw the youtube video of the student getting tasered in California I have dreamed of us getting tasers at my university library.
Librarians would learn to behave themselves around the patrons (such an old fashioned word) if they believed them to be armed with tasers.
That sentiment works in both directions, buddy boy.
Thanks for the explanation. I have a bit more to think about now.
Funny, but not nice!
Yeah, you could do that. Abandon the rule of law. Let the meanest and toughest rule. But if that's the kind of world you want, getting libraries to release your personal info is going to be the least of your problems.
LIBRARIANS=CONTROL FREAKS.
I just had to address this because I missed it the first time. A passport is not an adequate ID to get a library card because the purpose of showing ID is not just to verify that you are who you say you are, but that you currently live in and pay taxes to the library district. Simply showing a passport, which could be years old at that point, does not prove that you currently live within the library district. Usually some more current form of ID with your address or a recent utility bill is required.
He has a driver's license with his address on it. Did I mention I was not allowed to check out the books he had on hold even though we live at the same address?
I already responded to that part of your comment. Your library card is yours and yours alone. It's not held jointly by all members of your household. Scoff if you want but there are important privacy concerns. Maybe you don't see those concerns because you're thinking "why would my husband care if I check out his John Grisham books for him?" But libraries deal with many circumstances you may not be aware of and are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Someone like you is upset if not allowed to check out your husband's books. On the other hand, someone else would be understandably upset if they requested books on, say, divorce, abuse or some other touchy subject and the library handed those books to her husband or someone else in her household without her consent. Maybe these were books she was using to research something privately, that she didn't want her husband to know about. The point is, she has a right to expect that books reserved under her card are meant for her alone. That's a reasonable assumption.
There are libraries that are giving out family cards now, so that among other things parents can keep track of what their children are reading, watching, or listening to, or as might be helpful in this case so that a person might pick up material for a spouse. But if a person applies for a card under their own name there is a presumption of privacy involved with that.
It takes just a little imagination and stepping out of the bounds of our own happy marriages to realize that not everybody has a loving a trusting partner.
This is off-topic but this discussion reminded me of it. Back when I was in my 20s and living with my parents still (I know, I know... trying to save my money ;-P ), I had started investing some money in a mutual fund. My parents had a mutual fund with the same company. At some point, I guess to save mailing costs, this company started sending all account statements to the same address together in the same envelope. So both my parents' statements and mine came together, even though they were completely separate accounts started by different people (not spouses) at different times.
Now, I had nothing to hide but still I was incensed. What gave them the right to consolidate our separate, private accounts into the same envelope? Well, I called and complained and they stopped doing that but I was shocked by it! Just because people live in the same household does not mean they want all of their separate bank, credit card, mutual fund statements consolidated into one envelope! Whatever happened to privacy?
That works out to $160 per year per household. Where can you get internet access for that amount (that's $13 a month)? As well as free access to thousands of books? $160 would buy you only 6 hardcover books a year. You can get a lot more than that at the library. It's the best bargain around.
Someone like you is upset if not allowed to check out your husband's books. On the other hand, someone else would be understandably upset if they requested books on, say, divorce, abuse or some other touchy subject and the library handed those books to her husband or someone else in her household without her consent. Maybe these were books she was using to research something privately, that she didn't want her husband to know about. The point is, she has a right to expect that books reserved under her card are meant for her alone. That's a reasonable assumption.
You sound exactly like the snotty librarian who wouldn't allow me to check out my husband's W.E.B. Griffin books, and wouldn't allow him to check out my Nora Roberts books. What library did you say you work in?
You should look into getting a family card that has both of your names on it. You surely wouldn't expect your husband to withdraw money from a bank account that was set up only in your name. If you want dual privileges it must be set up that way.
Thanks for the info on that. If I were in a library that was open to the public (which mine is not) and had a circulating collection (which mine does not), I would find that a very useful program to attend.
Wow, you must be really sensitive if you thought my explanation was "snotty".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.