Re: Old-Fashioned Definition of "Wrong" (was Mr. Smiley's lawyer)

[Edward Levin <edwardlevin@HOTMAIL.COM>]

Paul Romaine's comment about the glibness of this debate strikes me as 
precisely on point.

Very few (if any) libraries have the financial resources to scan or 
microfiche all of their rare materials, if indeed this could even be done 
without risking damage to their more fragile materials. It's one thing to do 
this for a special exhibition (which U. Rochester did quite well), but quite 
another to fund such an effort for an entire collection.

Regarding 'casino level' real-time video surveillance, it's again important 
to note the level of expenditure required. It would be interesting to 
compare the average casino's daily surveillance costs with the annual 
operating budget of the average research library. My guess is that the 
casino would win.

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Beinecke did have video 
surveillance, which contributed to their apprehending Smiley. But Paul 
Romaine's comments still stand; unless we're prepared to submit to the time, 
effort and intrusion required for very high levels of security, there will 
continue to be vulnerabilities.

Edward Levin

s cheiner wrote:
> Check with the casino industry. They do an excellent
> job of recording everything that goes on where
> valueables (money & chips) are handled.

Edward Pollack wrote:
> Paul Romaine's thoughtful posting about library security
> made me wonder if there isn't a middle ground:
> could not these rare materials be scanned or microfiched
> for use in research related to content (e.g., checking a citation),
> so that the materials would not need to be handled
> except for research which related to the physical object.
> I don't know, but it would seem that this would considerably
> reduce the numbers of people handling these collections physically,
> and thus make tighter security easier and more efficient when
> the actual object needs to be handled by the researcher.