Access to library resources from the user’s perspective is getting simpler and easier at a rapid speed. Most librarians working with tech and computing services in some form or another are working to set up, maintain and improve the end-user experience by means of managing access at one or more levels at their institutions. No matter what your role is in any given organization, even if you are not primarily responsible, it is always helpful to have an understanding of the terminology so we can speak intelligently and help translate for others we work for and with.  At my own law library this is very much at the forefront of our minds with the University of Georgia pushing fast towards all departments rolling out Single Sign On, and for a couple of years now institutions across the state have been working to migrate resource authentication to more singular authentication models via OpenAthens. Finding myself in the midst of new and overlapping zones of information has been at times both exciting and overwhelming. Amidst it all I keep coming back to acronyms, definitions and other jargon which I am working to commit to memory. I hope this post can serve as a resource not just for myself but other CS members who find themselves in the middle of or responsible for resource access and management.

Let’s start by deciphering the differences between Authorization and Authentication, and how they work together:

• Authentication – this is the process of something or someone (a user) proving their identity to someone else (usually a system or resource).
• Authorization – this is the process by which a system (usually a server) determines permission and grants access to something.
• Why are the two coupled together? The two terms are used in the same sentence and sometimes even interchangeably depending on who you are speaking with because systems/servers need to have some concept of who is requesting access.
• Authentication types required for authorization can vary widely depending on the security level(s) of systems and resources. The most common type of authentication is a username and password.  Other examples of authentication include ID cards, retina scans, voice recognition, and fingerprints.

As librarians we provide access to large collections of resources for our patrons. Patrons are of course users that have authorization to access items in the library. They may use their library card to check out physical items. In this scenario the card is the authentication that allows the library to authorize the individual to borrow the item. In the world of electronic resources our vast digital collections require the same authentication for authorization – but how do we manage that online?

Here is a small but hopefully handy set of acronyms to help you navigate this increasingly complicated terrain:

• IAM – Identity and Access Management
• AD – Active Directory
• SSO – Single Sign On
• FIM – Federated Identity Management
• FID – Federated Identity
• OAUTH – Open Authorization
• >IDP – Identity Provider
• CAS – Central Authentication Service
• <LDP – Lightweight Directory Service
• LDAP – Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
• SAML – Security Assertion Markup Language

There are many, many more of course, but for the sake of this blog post these are the few that I have encountered most recently and am grasping at for our own resource transitions. A great resource for reading more about terminology is The Secret Security Wiki.

Essentially Single Sign On is exactly what it sounds like it would be: a simplification of the login authorization process by authenticating once. It also adds a safety layer by reducing the potential for error since different individual or duplicated logins are reduced to one. SSO is a type of organization access control that seems to be the standard solution. Sounds peachy, right? Of course – but as with anything easier on the surface, the background configuration is complex. For an overview of SSO pros and cons, I found this Data Protection Blog Resource quite helpful. Arguments aside, we’ve been dealt a hand we must deal with. Implementing SSO for our sites and other resources requires certain protocols in place to handle the back-and-forth between our users, the interface they authenticate through, and our resources which they are authorized to access.

A part of this SSO equation, federated entities (independently managed domains that have established a trusting relationship) allow stored identity provider credentials to connect to identity management systems. SAML is just one protocol which is the standard for AD federation services for logging users into a variety of applications based on sessions in a different context.

Across our university multi-factor authentication is also gaining momentum for double-checking user identity, usually by way of a personal device. Although the necessity for multi-factor authentication is not there (yet) for users and library resources, it is yet another layer available if the resource calls for further security measures.

As I am wrapping my own head around the various pieces of the authentication-authorization puzzle our department is currently deconstructing, building, and before all is said and done rebuilding again, I will no doubt return to this post myself. Are there other terms to add to this post? Are you a CS-SIS member dealing with these issues as well? Share your advice, expertise and other experiences in the comments below!

TRAINING LAW FACULTY TO TEACH LEGAL TECHNOLOGY: WHAT THEY NEED TO LEARN AND WHY is an AALL Webinar scheduled for Thursday, September 26, 2019 from 11am – 12pm US/Central.

This is the second offering of this useful program, which was previously targeted at an ALL-SIS audience.

Panelists for the Webinar include the following CS-SIS members:

Kenton Scott Brice
Director of Technology Innovation
University of Oklahoma Law Library

Emily M. Janoski-Haehlen
Associate Dean of Academic Affairs & Library Services & Director of the Law and Technology Program
University of Akron Law Library

Michael J. Robak
Library Director
University of St. Thomas

Stacey L. Rowland
Clinical Assistant Professor of Law, Assistant Director for Collection & Technology Services
University of North Carolina School of Law

DESCRIPTION

There no question technology has become the great disrupter for professional services providers (including lawyers). States have formally adopted model rules regarding technology competence for lawyers and the need for lawyers to learn how to leverage technology has continued to increase. Legal educators must give real consideration to the role of technology in the legal profession and sufficiently prepare law students to become competent lawyers able to practice law in today’s workplace. In this webinar, the presenters will describe the technology landscape and explain what law faculty need to learn about teaching legal tech in order to create technology capable lawyers.

Attendees will learn:
• how to develop technology learning objectives
• technology course assessment and how to develop an assessment protocol
• how to use certification programs to supplement curriculum efforts

If you are interested in the webinar, please register before September 23, 2019.

I am writing this post as a member of the CS-SIS blog committee, but I cannot take all the credit for the happenings I’m about to describe. The person who got the ball rolling and has been overseeing the project is a colleague of mine: Virginia Neisler, newly appointed Head of Reference & Research Services at the University of Michigan Law Library. Some of these words are hers, so if you have questions about anything in this post please feel free to reach out to either Virginia (vneisler@unimch.edu) or me (hanesjl@umich.edu).

The tl:dr version with some key highlights:

• Things will take longer than you think, so build in extra time for every phase/project/deadline.
• You will also need to involve more people than you initially plan for, so try to cast your net as wide as possible at the beginning (you’ll likely still be informed along the way that there are other people you need to consult with to get certain things done or approved).
• It will probably cost more than your initial projections, so perhaps come up with a budget for “just the basics” and another for the things you’d “like to have.” 

The longer version with more details:

One of our librarians at the University of Michigan Law Library, Virginia Neisler, was generally interested in how technology is impacting the practice of law and how law schools are preparing students. After attending an ABA TechShow she spoke with our director about what other schools were doing to address this issue. Together they decided to create a working group to figure out how we might convert a long-forgotten and unused CALR (computer-assisted legal research) room into a modern “Tech Lab.” 

As chair of the working group, Virginia’s vision for the Tech Lab was to create “a truly experiential lab where students can get hands-on, guided experience with various legal technologies.” Three other librarians, including myself, joined the group and together we started brainstorming ways to refresh the space in addition to researching what types of legal technology (software and hardware) that we would need to bring in for our students. 

Our process consists of four phases:

1. Information Gathering
2. Short Term Proposal
3. Implementation
4. Evaluation and Long Term Vision Planning

Phase One
We researched emerging classroom technologies, similar tech lab spaces in other schools, and spoke with colleagues throughout the country to find out what they were already doing, or planning to do. We spoke with internal stakeholders (Deans, Clinical faculty, etc.) and tried to find out what types of legal tech are most used by our alums in legal practice today, as well as what they think is most likely to be adopted in their workplaces in the near future. We also tried to keep our current student body in mind, especially where the knowledge gap(s) seemed to be the most severe. (For example, most of our students have Mac laptops, whereas the majority of our alumni use Windows PCs in their workplaces.)  Like many libraries undertaking space renovations, we also decided the furniture in the room needed to be as mobile and flexible as possible, so the room could be set up and utilized in a variety of ways. (We chose Knoll C-leg height-adjustable Pixel tables.)

Phase Two
We crafted a proposal to submit to our law school administrators, outlining our plan for the space renovation, necessary technology updates, and ideas for programming. This part, and getting the budget approved, seemed to take the longest, as we had to justify why the room needed to be re-carpeted and repainted, and why the tables and chairs already in the space were not adequate for what we had planned, not to mention justifying the cost of new computers and hardware. (We opted for wireless mice and keyboards to go with the PC computers, so students working in groups can more easily swap control of the computer.) For the technology and computer specs, we got bounced around between a few different IT people when we had questions and ended up needing to coordinate with many more people than we initially thought, which also extended our timeline slightly.

Phase Three
Phase 3 happened in stages, once the short term proposal was approved by our administration. Most of the painting, rewiring, and re-carpeting took a couple of months, and was paid for out of the library budget from FY19. Tables were ordered and paid for out of the library budget for FY20, and computers and associated hardware were paid for out of our IT department’s budget for FY20. During this time, we started promoting the Tech Lab on our social media channels.

While we had hoped to have the room ready to go for the start of the Fall 2019 term, things moved slower than planned and we are now planning to start hosting workshops in the Winter 2020 term. (Some things that slowed us down included multiple visits from campus IT for wiring and adding more ethernet ports, as well as delays in figuring out which budget would cover the cost of new computers and getting the overall budget approved.)

Phase Four
This phase will start in Winter 2020 as we evaluate workshop attendance and feedback from students in real time. Summer 2020 will allow us to revise and rework as needed, to prepare for long term vision planning, which may include the purchase of specific software or specialized hardware. We are aware of legal tech assessments like Procertas, and plan to advocate for an empirical assessment of our students’ technological competency, but in the meantime, we must rely on anecdotal evidence from our own and others’ interactions with our students. We believe no idea is too small as we get started, and plan to do some workshops on basic Word tutorials and PDF redacting, while folding in some email etiquette tips. (We’ve already heard from clinical staff that most students are lacking some basic skills in all of these areas.)

We’re excited about the “grand opening” of the Tech Lab next term, and will begin advertising it on our social media channels and in our interactions with clinical faculty and students throughout the fall semester. We will also continue to solicit ideas for tech skills at all levels from everyone we can, so if you have ideas or things you’ve already done that made the biggest difference, please share below!

Dear CS-SIS members,

The CS Executive Board invites you to be an active participant in CS-SIS. With members from all types of libraries, whose functions include network and system administrators, lab supervisors, webmasters, library directors, and many others, the Computing Services Special Interest Section serves the fastest-growing sector within our profession. Above all, Computing Services SIS members are legal information professionals dedicated to serving all the information needs of users with the aid of existing and developing technologies.

If you are interested in signing up for a CS committee, please fill out the interest form available here by Friday, August 2nd. We encourage you to express your interest at your earliest convenience. Why wait until after you return from the AALL Annual Meeting or perhaps some well-deserved vacation? Volunteer to help the CS-SIS better serve the needs of our members!

Participants in the CS-SIS designed Cool Tools Café have learned about emerging or existing technologies from librarians who have implemented these technologies in their own libraries. This year’s program will be presented in two parts: First, a formal session will feature a number of short presentations, and then the presenters will be available in a small-group setting, allowing for a more intimate discussion.

This year’s tools (and presenters) are:

• Chatfuel – AI chatbot for Facebook (Amy Pearce)
• ClassMarker – online quiz creation platform (Aaron Glenn)
• Coggle – mind-mapping tool (Amanda Watson)
• DoNotPay  – “robot lawyer” app (Tawnya Plumb)
• FindTime – scheduling across institutions (Austin Williams)
• Inbox Pause – Boomerang productivity tool for Gmail/Outlook (Kristina Alayan)
• Quick, Draw!  – AI tool (Emma Babler)
• Shiftboard – circulation desk scheduler (Ramona Collins)
• Trello – a project management app (Susan deMaine)

The program will be held Sunday, July 14th from 4:00-5:00 pm in WCC Room 152 AB.  If you haven’t already, please add Cool Tools Café to your AALL conference schedule.

How does a critical theory of technology relate to the practice of librarianship?

If you’ll be attending the AALL Annual Conference in DC, come find out at the CS Roundtable on Technology and Culture in the Law Library, hosted by Rebecca Kunkel, of Rutgers University Law School Library.

It will take place on Tuesday, July 16 from 12:45 – 1:45 pm in room 156 of the convention center.

The discussions will focus on how technology fits into your library and your institution’s culture and are planned for 4 general topics within the critical theory of technology:

1. labor process theory
2. the critique of technology as ideology
3. technology & gender
4. technological determinism/critiques of the information society

There will be two handouts, one of which is intended to introduce participants to a few ideas in labor process theory. It is available online here for anyone who’d like to get a head start. (I’d recommend reading it even if you’re not going!) The other handout will be a short bibliography for anyone interested in doing more reading/research on the topics discussed.

We hope to see you there!

I offer thanks to Ken Hirsh and his Strategic Planning Committee consisting of Kenton Brice, Kincaid Brown, Susanna Leers, Darla Jackson, Kris Niedringhaus, Amanda Watson, and Jean Willis for developing this strategic plan.  The plan has the unanimous support of the CS-SIS Executive Board as proposed and will be discussed and voted on by our membership at the CS breakfast meeting at the AALL conference in DC.

2019-2021 COMPUTING SERVICES

SPECIAL INTEREST SECTION

STRATEGIC PLAN

MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of the Computing Services Special Interest Section of the American Association of Law Libraries is:

• To provide a forum for the exchange of ideas, information and knowledge about technology among law librarians.
• To serve a leadership role in the ongoing professional development of law librarians as they evaluate, implement, and use new forms of technology at their organizations.
• To assist law librarians with demonstrating to their organizations the important roles librarians play in advancing the understanding and use of technology in legal education and the practice of law.

OBJECTIVE:

Become the leading AALL source for continuing education opportunities for librarians and library staff that work with and have an interest in technology.

RATIONALE:

In the past decade there has been strong interest in the teaching of practice technology to law students and lawyers, as well as in classroom and courtroom technologies. This is evidenced by discussion among section members, by additional law school course offerings; by social media discussions focusing on the topic; by the creation of a Section on Technology, Law and Legal Education in the Association of American Law schools; and by the creation of a Teaching Technology Caucus within AALL. There is an overlap between the section and the Digital and Educational Technologies SIS in the narrow area of presentation technologies. Digitization has been an interest of a significant portion of our membership but has not commanded a large part of our focus in recent years.

The 2019 survey of section membership found continuing strong interest in educational programming by the section, and in developing substantive papers in topics of interest, as would a think tank. The survey also showed members are interested in more effective communication within the section and reaching out to librarians outside of academia.

GOAL I: SECTION EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING

OBJECTIVE:

Advance and align section educational programming according to membership interest and need.

STRATEGIES:

1. Align educational programming with AALL’s Body of Knowledge.
2. Continue to create and promote excellent programming at the AALL annual meeting.
3. Develop and offer educational webinars and other programming throughout the year.

GOAL II: COMMUNICATION, ENGAGEMENT & OUTREACH

OBJECTIVE:

Actively engage members, both virtually and in person, throughout the year. Recruit new members.

Strategies:

1. Appoint a special committee to consider whether to change the section’s name. The committee’s deliverable will be a recommendation to the board whether to change the name and, if the recommendation is positive, to accompany it with one or more options for a new name. The committee shall make its final report within six months of appointment.
2. The chair or designated board members shall reach out to leadership of Digital and Educational Technologies SIS and the Teaching Technology Caucus to identify areas of shared interest and potential collaboration. If those organizations are willing, leadership shall discuss whether some form of organizational consolidation is desirable.
3. Identify potential new members among existing AALL members and law librarians who are not yet AALL members.
4. Implement an online annual business meeting.

GOAL III: EXECUTIVE BOARD AND COMMITTEE GOVERNANCE

OBJECTIVE:

To provide more structure to the work of the Executive Board and SIS projects; and, to provide more leadership and guidance to the Committee chairs in regard to Committee projects and goals.

STRATEGIES:

1. Assign to both board members-at-large the responsibility to manage a section-sponsored social event at the AALL annual meeting. While this event presently is Karaoke with Ken, board members should plan for an alternative event when that becomes necessary.
2. Continue efforts to develop effective governance continuity from year-to-year with cloud-based archiving of reports and other programmatic and governance documents. Continue succession planning efforts by the Executive Board.