Many thanks to all who responded so helpfully to my query about dealing
with public access Internet users who infringe the library service AUP.
On the whole, responses to attempted misuse followed a similar pattern of
escalation:
- nipping in the bud wherever possible
- dialogue with the user, to explain the policy and to persuade him/her
not to repeat the misuse
- a warning that a repeat will lead to a ban
- a ban for a fixed period, commensurate with the infringement. All
respondents operating a policy of banning Internet or terminal use limit
the ban to this service only, and do not withdraw other library
privileges.
In one instance an attempted breach of security was so serious that a ban
was imposed without a warning.
Generally, the policy on banning users has been reached in consultation
with, or specific problems cross-checked with legal staff. The common
opinion seems to be that, if there is proof that the user assented to the
AUP, there is no legal obstacle to imposing a ban if it is infringed.
This all seems very sensible to me, and will be a valuable reality check
for us as we draw up staff guidelines for customer care with Internet
users.
To the respondent who advocated ejection with maximum permissible force,
I'd just like to say thanks, but I reckon I lack the testosterone, the
adrenalin and the ace legal advisor necessary to carry this through!
Thanks again, colleagues.
Hilary Ely
Project Manager, Library Networks
Surrey County Council Community Services
Tel. 020 8541 7060. E-mail: [log in to unmask]
|