Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presenters: Jean Borg, Mark Casha, Eric Santucci Other Contributors: Laura Maloney, Du Xiao, Pedro Rosas.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Presenters: Jean Borg, Mark Casha, Eric Santucci Other Contributors: Laura Maloney, Du Xiao, Pedro Rosas."— Presentation transcript:

1 Presenters: Jean Borg, Mark Casha, Eric Santucci Other Contributors: Laura Maloney, Du Xiao, Pedro Rosas

2 Head of a Public Library implements internet access allows those who cannot afford computers to gain internet access Minors and older people seen watching porn on the library computers regularly Employees’ views : Install filtering software? Professional Association’s Code of conduct states ‘limiting access to library material by minors should not be a reason for diluting the library's collection’ But filtering is equivalent to buying an encyclopædia and cutting out certain articles that do not meet certain standards Library does not put pornographic material on the shelves with other books and periodicals Community Leaders drive for a solution 2

3 Do libraries have any legal or moral right to protect children? Do libraries have any legal or moral right to limit access to material available to adults? 3

4 In our analysis of the case study we have used the Josephson decision-making model 1. This allows us to focus on the case whilst confronting Ethical theories. Model phases: Clarify Evaluate Decide Implement Monitor and modify 4 1 Josephson Institute of Ethics. "Five Steps of Principled Reasoning." 1999.

5 Whether to limit access to the internet or not Alternative options Do nothing Filtering Access rights By user account privilege or By physical machine separation Remove internet access 5

6 Librarian’s duties Duty to Librarian’s Association Code of Conduct Professional Association’s Code of conduct states ‘limiting access to library material by minors should not be a reason for diluting the library's collection’ Duty towards community – providing access to information whilst safeguarding community values 6

7 Elimination of patently impractical, illegal and improper alternatives Do nothing | IMPROPER | ILLEGAL? Remove internet access | IMPRACTICAL Develop at least three ethically justifiable options: Filtering Access rights on same machine Physically separate machines in separate rooms Signs in the library 7

8 Consequentialism holds that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act 1 Deontology W.D. Ross’ Pluralistic Deontology (the 3 applicable duties out of 7) Duty of beneficence: A duty to help other people (increase pleasure, improve character) Duty of non-maleficence: A duty to avoid harming other people. Duty of justice: A duty to ensure people get what they deserve. 8 1 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

9 Points to consider Children prevented from accessing adult sites Adults allowed to access all information available Efficient use of public resources Updating of filtering software etc. Efficacy of the system 9

10 Deontological point of view BeneficenceNon-MaleficenceJustice Filtering  Access Rights  Separation  Signage  10

11 Consequentialist point of view Children non-access Adult access System Efficacy Resource efficiency Filtering  2 Access Rights  3 Separation  4 Signage  1 11

12 From both the Deontological and the Consequentialist perspectives the best solutions identified are; Implementing access rights with different user privileges for adults and children Providing physical separation between computers with full access and computers with restricted access. Prioritisation of values: 1. protecting children (given the current scenario) 2. adhering to library objectives - mainly accessibility of information 3. efficient use of public resources 12

13 To help all library patrons the most To harm children the least Worst Case Scenarios: Implement Access rights Children piggy-backing over adults By obtaining adult accounts By looking over an adult’s shoulder Possible adult-child illicit interaction due to proximity and account privilege Physical separation of workstations Child entering adult area Adult entering child area Possible dubious borderline cases 13

14 Applying 3 “ethics guides” FilteringAccess rights SeparationSignage Are you treating others as you would want to be treated? I would want to still be able to access information freely  Are you treating others as you would want to be treated? I would want my children to be protected  Would you be comfortable if your reasoning and decision were to be publicised?  Would you be comfortable if your children were observing you?  14

15 Maximise BenefitsMinimise Costs Access Rights More administration costs in the long run SeparationPreferableMore workstations (involving possible usage inefficiency) but self-regulated rather than administered 15

16 To monitor: Are children really being protected? How often are pornographic sites being accessed by the adult public? What increase in workload is the administration staff bearing? Prepare contingency plans whereby other solutions are implemented if Plan A not working. 16


Download ppt "Presenters: Jean Borg, Mark Casha, Eric Santucci Other Contributors: Laura Maloney, Du Xiao, Pedro Rosas."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google