Identity theft & the public library

[sheclown]

This is just stupid.  The library must accept some liability for checking out all of those books without a question or asking for ID.  Has anyone looked at the application for a card?

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://jpl.coj.net/lib/library-card-app.pdf

Additionally, the back of the library card, where patrons sign (ostensibly reinforcing the user beware aspect), says: "Members are responsible for any activity on their card until the library is notified."

sheclown, I'm sorry that your card was lost ages ago and you had to find out via a sizable bill.  

Instituting a policy of ID verification for the tiny percentage of people who may be the victim of a less than savory individual finding a library card and misusing it seems a bit much.  The card was not stolen but was truly lost.  The Library will suspend the card once it is reported lost/stolen, which is reasonable and sufficient.  It is not the Library's responsibility to ensure its patrons uphold their end of the agreement, nor should taxpayers have to pay for the installation of security cameras and other investigation equipment or increased staff to check IDs and inquire about borrowing habits, assess the appropriateness/validity of a large transaction, or inquire as to the lapse in use.

Just exactly how much does it cost to ask "can I see your ID?"

[Singejoufflue]

Sheclown, please know I'm not trying to pour acid on an open wound.  I really feel for you as I know how expensive library fees can be and when that many items are involved they rack up fast...

To your question though, the difference between the library card and credit card is the agreement you signed and acknowledged upon your first use of the card. Notice the Library application is a half page and offers one condition.  The credit card application has 4pt font and goes on for 10 pages...

[NotNow]

This is just stupid.  The library must accept some liability for checking out all of those books without a question or asking for ID.  Has anyone looked at the application for a card?

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://jpl.coj.net/lib/library-card-app.pdf

Additionally, the back of the library card, where patrons sign (ostensibly reinforcing the user beware aspect), says: "Members are responsible for any activity on their card until the library is notified."

sheclown, I'm sorry that your card was lost ages ago and you had to find out via a sizable bill. 

Instituting a policy of ID verification for the tiny percentage of people who may be the victim of a less than savory individual finding a library card and misusing it seems a bit much.  The card was not stolen but was truly lost.  The Library will suspend the card once it is reported lost/stolen, which is reasonable and sufficient.  It is not the Library's responsibility to ensure its patrons uphold their end of the agreement, nor should taxpayers have to pay for the installation of security cameras and other investigation equipment or increased staff to check IDs and inquire about borrowing habits, assess the appropriateness/validity of a large transaction, or inquire as to the lapse in use.

Just exactly how much does it cost to ask "can I see your ID?"

+1

[strider]

To my understanding, the library has added pin numbers to the self checkouts due to abuse or theft via library card.  Once they have acknowledged that they needed to add security for theft reasons at the self checkouts, the reasonable expectation is that they needed to add that same security to the counter check outs.  Asking for and checking a picture ID is not an unreasonable expectation.

When we live in a world that requires one to show multiple forms of identification to renew a government issued picture ID how is not checking an ID acceptable to anyone when dealing with up to 50 books that could easily total a value of $ 5000.00?

For all we know, the way the system is set up, it could easily be an inside job and the books sold. How many innocent people have had to pay thousands out of their pockets because the library board and perhaps the chief librarian have been negligent to their clientele, which, by the way, is us, the tax payers.  Their reckless policies of not checking ID's and not protecting their clientele in a reasonable and normally accepted manor may even make them complicit.   

[ChriswUfGator]

This is just stupid.  The library must accept some liability for checking out all of those books without a question or asking for ID.  Has anyone looked at the application for a card?

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://jpl.coj.net/lib/library-card-app.pdf

Additionally, the back of the library card, where patrons sign (ostensibly reinforcing the user beware aspect), says: "Members are responsible for any activity on their card until the library is notified."

sheclown, I'm sorry that your card was lost ages ago and you had to find out via a sizable bill. 

Instituting a policy of ID verification for the tiny percentage of people who may be the victim of a less than savory individual finding a library card and misusing it seems a bit much.  The card was not stolen but was truly lost.  The Library will suspend the card once it is reported lost/stolen, which is reasonable and sufficient.  It is not the Library's responsibility to ensure its patrons uphold their end of the agreement, nor should taxpayers have to pay for the installation of security cameras and other investigation equipment or increased staff to check IDs and inquire about borrowing habits, assess the appropriateness/validity of a large transaction, or inquire as to the lapse in use.

That's like all those signs at the car wash stating that they aren't responsible for anything no matter how negligent they are with your vehicle. They can write whatever they want, it doesn't mean that's what's actually going to happen. I don't really care what the card says, the library cannot hold her responsible for someone elses criminal acts. Period.

[Jumpinjack]

You've got it right, sheclown. Skip over all moralizing library staffers and go straight to the library board. Lots of money is at stake here because the library can't bring itself to ask for some sort of id or even a pin number at the front desk. That's a bunch of baloney.

[Ernest Street]

Does Ken Amaro know about this yet?

[MrPajitnov]

This is just stupid.  The library must accept some liability for checking out all of those books without a question or asking for ID.  Has anyone looked at the application for a card?

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://jpl.coj.net/lib/library-card-app.pdf

Additionally, the back of the library card, where patrons sign (ostensibly reinforcing the user beware aspect), says: "Members are responsible for any activity on their card until the library is notified."

sheclown, I'm sorry that your card was lost ages ago and you had to find out via a sizable bill.  

Instituting a policy of ID verification for the tiny percentage of people who may be the victim of a less than savory individual finding a library card and misusing it seems a bit much.  The card was not stolen but was truly lost.  The Library will suspend the card once it is reported lost/stolen, which is reasonable and sufficient.  It is not the Library's responsibility to ensure its patrons uphold their end of the agreement, nor should taxpayers have to pay for the installation of security cameras and other investigation equipment or increased staff to check IDs and inquire about borrowing habits, assess the appropriateness/validity of a large transaction, or inquire as to the lapse in use.

That's like all those signs at the car wash stating that they aren't responsible for anything no matter how negligent they are with your vehicle. They can write whatever they want, it doesn't mean that's what's actually going to happen. I don't really care what the card says, the library cannot hold her responsible for someone elses criminal acts. Period.

Judging by the policy on the cards and the applications it looks the customer is being held responsible for not maintaining their card, not "someone else's criminal acts"

[sheclown]

The problem with holding the customer "responsible" is that immediately upon card loss, a person can check out the books.  Looking at the date of my situation, all books (39 of them) were checked out within 5 minutes. 

This could have been minutes after my card went missing. 

This is an unreasonable standard that the library certainly doesn't hold itself to.

Last I knew, the library was charged with being good stewards of items that the public and private contributors put into their keep.  Doesn't seem like a good policy just letting anyone walk out of the door with them. 

[ChriswUfGator]

This is just stupid.  The library must accept some liability for checking out all of those books without a question or asking for ID.  Has anyone looked at the application for a card?

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://jpl.coj.net/lib/library-card-app.pdf

Additionally, the back of the library card, where patrons sign (ostensibly reinforcing the user beware aspect), says: "Members are responsible for any activity on their card until the library is notified."

sheclown, I'm sorry that your card was lost ages ago and you had to find out via a sizable bill.  

Instituting a policy of ID verification for the tiny percentage of people who may be the victim of a less than savory individual finding a library card and misusing it seems a bit much.  The card was not stolen but was truly lost.  The Library will suspend the card once it is reported lost/stolen, which is reasonable and sufficient.  It is not the Library's responsibility to ensure its patrons uphold their end of the agreement, nor should taxpayers have to pay for the installation of security cameras and other investigation equipment or increased staff to check IDs and inquire about borrowing habits, assess the appropriateness/validity of a large transaction, or inquire as to the lapse in use.

That's like all those signs at the car wash stating that they aren't responsible for anything no matter how negligent they are with your vehicle. They can write whatever they want, it doesn't mean that's what's actually going to happen. I don't really care what the card says, the library cannot hold her responsible for someone elses criminal acts. Period.

Judging by the policy on the cards and the applications it looks the customer is being held responsible for not maintaining their card, not "someone else's criminal acts"

Someone fraudulently used her card without her permission. That is most certainly someone else's criminal act. The way you're trying to make it sound is as though she loaned it to her friend and was then shocked to receive a bill. That's not what happened. A police report was filed documenting that it was stolen, which incidentally the library says they "don't accept" police reports. Seriously? Someone then used it without her knowledge or permission.

So again, your thoughts really don't hold much water. You would apparently hold one person responsible for the criminal acts of another person, which occurred without the knowledge or consent of the allegedly responsible party. It's preposterous. By your logic, if someone steals my car and uses it to rob a bank, I should go to jail for bank robbery?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

By your logic, if someone steals my car and uses it to rob a bank, I should go to jail for bank robbery?

I can't help myself sometimes.  When did you report your car stolen?  How long after the robbery was that?  Where were you when this was taking place?  Did you 'loan' your car out to anyone?  Is there an extra set of your keys to the car?  Why don't you come down to the station and lets get some more facts.

So yes, you might visit the jail and answer some questions if your car was stolen and used in a bank robbery.  But that shouldn't make you a cop hater.

[ChriswUfGator]

By your logic, if someone steals my car and uses it to rob a bank, I should go to jail for bank robbery?

I can't help myself

That's quite apparent, no need to state the obvious.

And I'm not a cop hater. I think most of them are quite professional. Others are not. Depends on the cop.

Just like I find certain people are complete idiots, but that doesn't make me a total misanthrope. There are plenty I like.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

That's quite apparent, no need to state the obvious.

And I'm not a cop hater. I think most of them are quite professional. Others are not. Depends on the cop.

Just like I find certain people are complete idiots, but that doesn't make me a total misanthrope. There are plenty I like.

I would like to have responded with something witier, but I have to google misanthrope first.  

[NotNow]

That's quite apparent, no need to state the obvious.

And I'm not a cop hater. I think most of them are quite professional. Others are not. Depends on the cop.

Just like I find certain people are complete idiots, but that doesn't make me a total misanthrope. There are plenty I like.

I would like to have responded with something witier, but I have to google misanthrope first. 

[sheclown]

I just received another phone call from Ron.  The tab is $1500.00  with the possibility of working it down to $981.00

I can either make payments or it gets turned over to a collection agency.

I plan on attending the library board meeting next week.