🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr6.201903.18335@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
 cs4cb3ii@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Group I) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.205935.29334@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu
> (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>If your library is like most, it does not keep a record of the books
>>you check out. The importance of this policy was reinforced when the
>
>Sure it does.  Every library I have ever been to has eventually come after
>me for my overdue books.  Whether or not this information can be
>used, or in what manner it can be used is controlled, but libraries do
>at some time, know what books you have.  I would also be willing to bet
>that most computerized library systems keep track of your old
>records, at least until that particular database record is 'overwritten'
>by a new borrower/book record.  Perhaps someone with more knowledge
>of computerization in library book checkout could write a comp.risks
>article. (?)
>
>Scott G.
>cs4cb3ii@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca

I have acquired, installed, modified and otherwise maintained several
automated library systems.  Each of them maintains a linkage between
the patron's identification code and each item they currently have
checked out.  However, when an item is checked back in to the library
the connection between the borrower and the item borrowed is removed,
and no record of this is kept.  However, bear in mind the "Ollie North
Effect," that backup copies of the databases on computers are spun off
to tape.  So if you checked out a book today, the record of that
transaction would be on tonight's backup tape.  If you checked it back
in tomorrow, it would not be on tomorrow night's backup.  The record
on tonight's backup would theoretically be available to anyone who
could/wanted to restore the system to today's database status and
look at the information [this is what happened to Ollie North's electronic
mail.  He thought that once he deleted the messages from his mailbox
they were gone forever.]