Articles Posted in David Badertscher

Today Sept. 16, 2009, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, released the first draft of the committee’s long awaited proposed legislation to overhaul the country’s health care system. The proposal is the result of more than a year of preparation and more than three months of intense negotiations between a small group of Democrats and Republicans led by Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee.

The following are a few highlights of interest included in this 223 page proposal:

The bill includes a slimmed down price-tag of $856 billion over 10 years. Earlier versions of the health care legislation had come in costing $1 trillion or more

In their September 8 article in Bloomberg News, Cary O’Reilly and Linda Sandler write that “[A]s the White House and Congress debate how to regulate financial crisis, judges have assumed the point position of punishing Wall Street for causing the worst recession since the 1930s.” O’Reilly and Sandler point out that while the executive and legislative branches of government continue to discuss the possibilities of implementing various reforms as a response to the financial crisis that began approximately a year ago, “judges are [actually] taking the first steps toward the same goal, punishing executives and issuing rulings with national impact.” In their article O’Reilly and Sandler go on to enumerate specific examples of how some judges have proceeded along this path.

According to the Editors of The Crime Report, the movement to ban shackling pregnant prisoners is gaining momentum. On August 26, 2009, Governor David Paterson of New York signed a bill (now NY Chapter 411 2009) banning the practice for all but the most unruly inmates. What is happening in your state?

Only six states-California, Illinois, New Mexico, New York, Texas and Vermont-have legislation regulating the use of restraints on pregnant women. Women detained in 44 states, the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Prisons lack such legislative protection. Some state departments of corrections did not provide details on what type of restraints may be utilized during labor, nor did they provide their policy.

(Research provided by Amnesty International and The Rebecca Project for Human Rights.)

After posting two articles on this Web site here and here related to the Obama administration seriously considering allowing much greater flexibility regarding the use of cookies and tracking devices on government Web sites, I thought I was finished with the topic. That is until this morning August 25 when I notices a well written and thoughtful editorial about “cookies” and the web in the New York Times. Since the editorial helped to clarify my thinking I wanted to share it with you here.

After a discussion of the issues, here in a nutshell are the concerns raised and approaches presented in the editorial:

1. More stringent requirements regarding the permanent and prominet display of notices on all government Web sites to clearly inform users that use of the Web sites is being tracked.

Volume 2 Number 8 August 2009.

From the Desk of David G. Badertscher

Mmmm… cookies – chocolate chip and oatmeal with raisins! Cookies are one of the most popular snacks that exist today. Did you know you can get “browser” cookies almost every time you go on the Internet? These cookies help with Internet commerce, allow quicker access to web sites, or can personalize your browsing experience. However, there are some privacy and security issues to be aware of, so it is important to understand the purpose of a “browser” cookie and manage their use on your computer appropriately. This tip will help you understand what a “browser” cookie is, what it is used for and what risks might be associated with using cookies.

David Badertscher*

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) within the White House is considering whether federal web sites should be permitted to use cookies and other web tracking technologies and is asking for input from the public.

According to Michael Fitzpatrick, an associate administrator with the OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, “the goal of this review is to develop a new policy that allows the Federal government to continue to protect privacy of people who visit Federa(s)l websites while, at the same time, making these websites more user-friendly, providing better customer service, and allowing for more enhanced analytics”.To read this entire discussion about cookies policy for Federal websites go to the posting by Mr. Fitzpatrick and Vivek Kundra of the Office of Science & Technology Policy Blog To share your comments on the approach outlined in their posting, you can post a comment on the OSTP blog, submit comments directly in response to the Federal Register notice mentioned in the posting, or email them to: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Comments submitted by August 10, 2009 in one of these three ways, will be taken into consideration. Responding to this posting directly from the OSTP blog requires registration and other authentication routines before posting.

As announced yesterday July 23, 2009, U.S. federal agents swept accross New Jersey and New York, charging 44 people (including mayors, rabbis and one alleged trafficker in human kidneys) of being involved in public corruption and international money laundering practices..

The following are links to some documents related to that two track investigation. For additional news and related information go to the U.S. Department of Justice website at: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/index.html

Statement: Two Track Investigation of Political Corruption and International Money Laundering

David Badertscher*

For almost forty years I have been in charge of law libraries. During that time I have acquired great appreciation and respect for the value and work of library catalogers. This posting is a small token of that respect and gratitude.

Have you ever wondered how all the information in library online catalogs, or OPACS is collected and organized in a way that makes it accessible and useful to us when we need it? As it turns out, the process of collecting–and especially organizing–this information and making it accessible to us is quite rigorous, involving complex, exacting standards and rules.

To perhaps oversimplify, cataloguing involves listing, analyzing, describing, classifying, identifying points of access such as subject headings or titles (access points) to the information being cataloged, and making any necessary preparation for user access from both within a library or through remote access from various locations, of knowledge based structured content (bibliographic content) associated with a library or group of libraries, all under the direction of specially trained professional catalogers. To ensure consistency and overall coordination of these processes both within and among libraries, it has been essential to establish well coordinated and agreed upon standards and conventions which catalogers working from diverse locations and organizations can rely upon to provide maximum benefit to us the end users.

For cataloging standards to remain relevant, they must take into account various factors including the preservation of the integrity and accessibility of the collection being cataloged, the mission of the organization housing or hosting the collection, needs and concerns of end users, and changes in information needs and cultural values over time. Depending on circumstances, such changes may necessitate either comparatively minor revisions or major revisions in order for these standards to remain relevant as the basis for effective cataloging. Judging from what I have read while preparing this posting it appears that catalogers have always been and continue to be very diligent and effective in this regard.

For many years the rules of cataloging have been primarily governed by a group of standards and rules called Anglo American Cataloguing Rules (AACR) and later AACR2 which is still being used as this is being written. Both AACR and AACR2 were designed to accommodate either hard copy (print or card catalogs) or earlier versions of computer-based or online catalogs. By the beginning of the 21st century it was widely recognized that either a major revision in AACR2 or a new standard that goes beyond existing cataloging codes was needed to provide adequate guidelines for cataloging digital resources, responding to the challenges of the world wide web, and to provide a greater emphasis on helping an increasingly diverse group of users to find, identify, select and obtain the information they need. After much discussion, consultation, and deliberation it was decided to go with a new standard called Resource Description and Access or RDA, which is scheduled to replace AACR2 later this year, 2009.

Why is this being discussed on a public blawg? Because we need to realize that although much of their work is behind the scenes and invisible to most of us, catalogers continue to play an important, critical role in enabling us to find the information essential to our going about our daily lives both at work and at home. Although search services are often useful, even vital, they are no substitute online catalogs when searching for bibliographic materials housed in libraries, groups of libraries or similar organizations. Cataloging standards can also form the basis for other forms of web searching. A prominent information consultant told me some years ago that he liked to hire catalogers for applications development in database and web searching because he found their training and expertise to be so helpful and effective.

To summarize, from all appearances cataloguers and cataloging continue to be highly relevant to our increasingly interactive and interconnected society with its growing information needs. But they need our recognition and appreciation for their many contributions. I hope this posting helps in that regard . Since this is a general discussion, I have left out many details of possible interest. To help fill in the blanks I have asked Joni Lynn Cassidy, President of Cassidy Cataloging Services to write her own article for this blawg. I am happy to report that she has accepted and we can all look forward to her forthcoming article.
_______________________________ *David Badertscher is the Principal Law Librarian at the New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library, First Judicial District in New York, NY. Although not strictly a cataloger, he is interested in technical services issues and is a member of the AALL TS-SIS.

For those who are interested in pursuing this topic further, you can click on the link below to see some of the sources consulted in preparation for this posting.:
Continue reading

Can the offering of goods and services such as Google searches free of charge be considered in violation of antitrust? Many librarians have expressed an interest in this issue. They are concerned about what any resolution of this question wll have on their continuing efforts to provide knowledge based goods and services (including new and enhanced products) in an increasingly financially constrained environment to patrons with ever increasing expectations. They want to be informed about what the producers and providers they depend on, such as Google, are thinking about this issue? Hence this postingl

In a July 10 posting on the Google Policy Blog Dana Wagner responds to comments by Chris Anderson, editor of Wired Magazine and author of the book Free in a piece Chris wrote for CNN and possibly to additional comments by Chris during his presentation at the Google D.C. office earlier in the week. In his D.C. presentation Chris explained how new business models and approaches to advertising will change the focus of global commerce.

What really seems to have caught Dana Wagner’s attention however is the following excerpt from Chris’s CNN piece:

David Badertscher
Legal experts and prosecutors are quite concerned about possible results of the June 25, 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts 07-591. In this decision the Court has ruled that forensic analysts conducting tests must be in court to testify about their test results and that lab sheets that identify a substance as a narcotic, or breath test printouts describing a suspect’s blood-alcohol level are no longer to be considered as sufficient evidence. A person is now required to be in court to talk about the test results. The basic question the Supreme Court addressed in this opinion was: “Is a state forensic analyst’s laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution “testimonial” evidence subject to the demands of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington?”* In its ruling the Supreme Court answered, yes.
_________________________ *The above quote was taken from discussion of this opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court Oyez website at. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_591 . This site also includes links to the text of the opinion as well at to the Syllabus, dissent, concurrance, and argument. For additional information see discussion in a July 15, 2009 Washington Post article by Tom Jackman, and follow the link on the U.S. Supreme Court website.

Contact Information