Tag Archives: surveillance

Data Privacy Day 2021: Standing by Key Library Values in Challenging Times

28 January marks the annual Data Privacy Day, dedicated to raising awareness and celebrating this crucial right in communities across the globe. The past year saw important shifts and developments in discourses around privacy – and now is a good time for libraries to reflect and consider next steps.

Where does privacy discourse stand at the beginning of 2021?

Data protection, privacy and security continue to be among the key elements of discussions around how we should govern and regulate the internet and other digital technologies. Over the past months, significant developments in this area include:

  • The growing new generation of privacy laws and regulations around the world. The way in which the personal data of more and more of the world’s population is collected, stored and used is now subject to new privacy regimes which attempt to respond to a digital world. A recent report by Internet & Jurisdiction and ELAC, for example, points out that in Latin America and the Caribbean alone, there are several states reforming or modernising their data protection legislation or discussing bills at present. 2020 saw a new privacy act in New Zealand and the entry into force of the Californian Consumer Privacy Act, and more legislative measures can be expected around the world.
  • Data privacy considerations of COVID responses. Of course, measures taken to try to slow the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic have also been at the heart of the discussion on data privacy.

Looking at this issue through a human rights lens, the UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy recently examined two key privacy aspects of pandemic responses – data protection and surveillance. While the report clarifies that much more data is needed to assess the necessity and proportionality of various measures, it is nevertheless crucial to keep in mind the dangers of non-consensual methods and the danger of function creeps – including in technology-based responses.

  • Privacy and the ‘leap to digital’. And of course, there is the broader reality of a rapid ‘leap to digital’ that many countries experienced during the pandemic, with the urgency of moving online risking coming at the expense of a full exploration of the implications of the choices made. From organisations and businesses grappling with the data privacy implications of remote work, schools and others needing to bear in mind what leaving cameras on during lessons could reveal about pupils and teachers alike; and to social, leisure or study activities that people carry out online – all these raise important considerations.

Libraires, of course, have fully felt the impacts of these trends. Librarians, just like the communities they serve, have faced the trends set out above, in particular as regards the need to shift to working from home – with all the staff data privacy implications this entails. For those remaining open, some have been asked or required to collect, store and process health and/or visitor data.

Many have broadened their offering of digital materials for users to lend, which emphasises the importance of longstanding discussions about third party vendor privacy policies – for example around the data that publishers and others collect about how readers use materials.

Already in the first half of the year, patron privacy considerations were particularly pressing for school and academic libraries, with urgent questions around student data and remote learning.

Similarly, other efforts – from online storytimes to homework help – all come with crucial choices on how to protect patron privacy.

The global library field responds. When faced with these questions, the library field has seen a vast array of active and vigilant responses. Libraries have spoken out about the importance of patron privacy – from the Japanese Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom Committee to CILIP’s Policy Statement on COVID-19 that highlights, inter alia, the importance of upholding the right to privacy when implementing measures to curb the spread of the pandemic.

Members of the global and national library fields – e.g. in Italy, the US and Czechia – collected and disseminated useful information, including suggestions and ideas on how to navigate privacy considerations during the pandemic. They also shared practical guidance, key questions and good practices around the new patron privacy considerations.

Standing by key library values. It is encouraging to see that libraries continue to be strong privacy champions and advocates even in these times, finding more ways to support the privacy and digital wellbeing of their communities.

From Singapore to the Netherlands, we have seen traditional online safety and security skills support programmes migrate online – for example, as published tip-sheets or courses, or live webinars. New ideas are being explored – from awareness-raising virtual exhibits to the potential of a library VPN for patrons.

Ensuring library capacity and resources – a key priority. These responses demonstrate the evolving application of twin library priorities – safeguarding patron data in library processes, and helping build their communities’ awareness and skills to defend their own privacy, outside of library environments. However, as the past year showed,  the new circumstances – particularly the shift to digital – raise challenging new questions and demands.

News from Finland, for example, points out that many libraries need to address patron privacy in new ways – including questions which may require legal advice. Similarly, Public Libraries Victoria discusses libraries’ experiences with helping seniors navigate online services –  a crucial part of their offering; however, the shift to digital here can also put increased pressure on library staff in navigating complex privacy questions when offering hands-on support.

This highlights the importance of making sure that libraries have the capacity and resources to carry out these tasks. This includes, inter alia, IT resources – since cybersecurity and data privacy and fundamentally linked. As libraries face new and increasing tasks and duties – to meet the demand and expand digital offerings while maintaining data privacy and security – it is crucial that they have the resources to do so.

 

Many key challenges and developments of 2020 continue to impact the work of libraries around the world. As they continue to face these, libraries maintain their support and ethical commitment to privacy – and we look forward to another year of active dialogue and exchange of good practices in support of data privacy!

Facial Recognition, Libraries, and Intellectual Freedom

FAIFE is marking the 20th anniversary of the IFLA Statement on Intellectual Freedom. As part of this, Jonathan Hernandez-Perez, a FAIFE member from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) has shared the below blog on the subject of facial recognition technology, and what it means for libraries and their values. 

 

Facial recognition is one of the current obsessions of the tech industry, with regular high-profile product launches meaning that it is also high on the public agenda. It has developed rapidly over the last years, making it possible to undertake tasks that usually take hours in just the blink of an eye.

Yet as the number of public spaces that use this technology keeps rising, so too do the public’s concerns about privacy and surveillance, leading to many  more negative media headlines and an intense social media debate. This blog explores what facial recognition technology is, the questions it raises, and what this means for libraries.

 

What is Facial Recognition?

Facial recognition is a type of technology that allows the verification and identification of a person through analysis of his/her facial features. This technology has been with us since long before the coming of the internet.

With the intention of obtaining a definition of the “criminal face” during the 19th century, several facial patterns of ex-convicts and criminals were gathered. Fortunately, the idea that the measurements of someone’s head are associated with criminal tendencies has long been rejected.

However, some of the techniques involved have been enriched and improved, involving a greater number of actors and interests, leading to current technology that makes our daily lives more comfortable, from the basics of unlocking our cellphones or automatically “tag” a friend in a picture, to the more complicated issues, such as airport check-ins, tools to validate our identities at ATMs, or even means of gauging emotional responses. It turns our face, our emotions, and expressions into a bar code.

Furthermore, facial recognition has the potential to be combined with other technologies in order to combine and enhance the tracking that happens in the digital and physical sphere.

 

Enabling Surveillance, Hidden Bias

The convenience allowed for by facial recognition comes with a price, and in the digital era the cost is our privacy. This is because nowadays, our facial expressions – the very essence of human social and emotional interaction – have become an object of experimentation, propaganda, and database development. Arguably, we are only partially aware of the extent and consequences this technology could have in a very short time period, particularly because biometric technologies are still not widely understood.

A particular worry is the degree to which facial recognition technology enables mass surveillance. In 2013 the IFLA Trend Report stated that expanding data sets – for example of faces – held by governments and companies will support the advanced profiling of individuals, while sophisticated methods of monitoring and filtering communications data will make tracking those individuals cheaper and easier, warning that serious consequences for individual privacy and trust in the online world could be experienced. This now appears to be coming true.

In 2014, Insecam demonstrated the possibility of illicitly obtaining images from security and surveillance cameras that use weak passwords. This poses a particular threat to public privacy since they are placed in public spaces. Meanwhile, in 2016, a Russian photographer carried out an experiment to show how easy it was to identify strangers in the streets using only one picture to identify them. More recently, FaceApp, which takes your photo and gives an idea of how you’ll look decades from now, put back into focus the privacy vulnerabilities of mobile applications.

The consequences of the implementation of facial recognition technologies have come into the spotlight with the recent protests in Hong Kong, showing how our faces can become a weapon either for persecution or prosecution. Responding to public pressure, some cities have begun to ban the use of facial recognition software by state agencies; San Francisco, Somerville, and Oakland are the first cities in the United States with a regulatory law over this topic.

A further concern is around the risk of bias in facial recognition technologies. These systems are usually trained on a different number of faces from specific groups of people with similar facial characteristics (Mostly Caucasian) which could lead to the failure of people recognition in a more diverse environment, and in a legal way, this could lead possible mistaken identification entailing people to crimes they didn’t commit.

This matter involves race, gender identity, and sexual orientation issues which makes it more threatening and harmful, there are a number of examples of how this technology is developing an automated racism.

 

Impacts for Libraries

This year IFLA celebrates the 20th anniversary of the “IFLA Statement on Libraries and Intellectual Freedom”. It is as crucial as ever to underline one of its key principles:

Library users shall have the right to personal privacy and anonymity. Librarians and other library staff shall not disclose the identity of users or the materials they use to a third party.

This principle is relevant at the moment because today, privacy and mass surveillance are some of the most pervasive and threatening issues we face. Certainly, we risk seeing facial recognition turn from being a “fad” into a normal practice and would eventually be part of a new common sense and part of our mainstream culture. This would imply an important loss of privacy.

Libraries have always worked to keep up to speed with new technology and to make best use of the possibilities it offers. Therefore, facial recognition will also impact in their services.

Facilitating the registration, loan, and access to information resources could be a very attractive reason to implement this kind of technology in libraries. Companies are already selling biometric software for book loans and some libraries have been using these systems for a couple of years now.

In the near future, libraries may be able to offer material based on our facial expression, then, our face could become a personal card that does not belong to us, associated with all the data about books read, web pages consulted, and topics we are passionate about. If we are not aware of the extent of this information, it could become a big threat to our privacy.

As a result, the use of this technology in libraries is a matter that should be analyzed in the light of user freedoms and rights, and the potential damage it could do to privacy and intellectual freedom, values that libraries have defended for years.

Therefore, libraries must provide digital secure spaces where our movements are not tracked and develop privacy programs for librarians and their community. An interesting example is the Library Freedom Institute, which teaches librarians and patrons how to protect their privacy online and how to influence public policies on this matter.

 

Conclusion

Although we may share similarities with other people all over the world, every face has its own interesting and unique features. Thousands of databases are daily fed with biometric information and we are taking part into this dynamic through our daily digital behavior. But the problem shouldn´t be attached to the user. Knowing the value of our data or agreeing on the terms and conditions companies impose it’s not enough, neither is derision or banning some apps or software.

What is required is having strong legal frameworks and policies that protect individual rights for limiting such tracking. Libraries can both lead the way in their practice, and push for the right laws and regulations in their advocacy.

IFLA Statement on Libraries and Intellectual Freedom, 20 Years On – the UK Perspective

FAIFE is marking the 20th anniversary of the IFLA Statement on Intellectual Freedom. To understand where the debate on intellectual freedom stands today, we are talking with the members and expert advisors of the FAIFE Committee. Today, we’re getting the perspective from the United Kingdom from Louise Cooke, Professor of Information and Knowledge Management at Loughborough University.

 

This year we celebrate twenty years since the IFLA Statement on Intellectual Freedom was prepared by IFLA FAIFE and approved by the Executive Board of IFLA on 25 March 1999 in The Hague, Netherlands.

This seems a good point to stand back and reflect on where we are now as a society in terms of intellectual freedom, and some of the challenges facing this critical human right.

Of course, our perspectives will differ according to where in the world we are living, not to mention our own subjective views: therefore, this blog can only be written from my own perspective as a UK citizen. However, comments and reflections from your own personal and geographical perspective would be welcome in the comments section below. Please feel free to contribute!

The term ‘intellectual freedom’ can mean many things even to a single person. Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that relates to intellectual freedom, states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” (United Nations, 1948)

Although not explicitly using the term ‘intellectual freedom’, this is a useful starting point for a definition.

It is inclusive – everyone has an equal right to this basic civil liberty. It also acknowledges the right to hold opinions without interference, whether or not we choose to express them.

In addition, it does not constrain itself to freedom of expression (i.e. the right to speak, write or publish controversial opinion) but also highlights the importance of freedom of access to information, in whatever form it takes and wherever we may be in the world.

In the UK this right is all too often taken for granted: albeit that it is restricted by numerous legislative instruments (such as the Obscene Publications Act 1964, the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and the Public Order Act 1986) and social norms that proscribe potentially offensive or harmful speech, there is a general belief that we are relatively free to voice our opinions and to access information without constraint.

The UK Human Rights Act 1998 Article 10 reflects the UN UDHR in asserting that everyone has the right to freedom of speech, including the right ‘to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers’. Since 2005, we have also held a legal right to request information held by public authorities via the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

However, it must be borne in mind that these rights are qualified, for example in the interests of national defence and security and, in the case of the Human Rights Act, also for ‘the protection of health and morals’, all of which exemptions seem sufficiently broad (and vague) as to raise questions about the validity of the protection of freedom of speech and freedom of access to information in practice.

The UK is currently undergoing a period of turmoil, change and uncertainty, in particular with regard to the proposed exit from the European Union.

A recent ‘Democracy Audit’ (Dunleavy, Park & Taylor 2018) carried out by scholars at the LSE highlighted the adverse impact of divisions over Brexit and chaotic political party relations, the polarisation of debate and the damaging impact on small parties inflicted by the ‘first past the post’ electoral system, and the damage caused to public services by the austerity agenda pursued between 2010 and 2018.

Public libraries have been hit particularly hard by this agenda, with nearly 130 public library closures in 2018 alone, and many local libraries being ‘deprofessionalised’ and left to community groups to run.

This is a concern for intellectual freedom: whilst well-meaning volunteers may prevent a local area from being left with no library service, volunteers are not usually professionally trained and may not hold the same awareness of, and commitment to, the professional body CILIP’s commitment to the principle of intellectual freedom and rejection of censorship and its newly revised Ethical Framework.

Meanwhile, work carried out at Loughborough University between 2012 and 2014 on UK public libraries’ management of internet access, found that, while the use of filtering software appears to be ubiquitous in UK public libraries, most professional and frontline library staff regarded the expediency of this to be of greater import than the potential adverse impact of filtering on intellectual freedom.

In addition to the impact of public library closures, increasingly restrictive anti-terrorism legislation, and the use of filtering software, public libraries in the UK are, as elsewhere, subject to challenges from members of their local community regarding appropriateness of material held by the library.

Censorship challenges to books held in Scottish public libraries are detailed in a 2012 paper by Taylor and McMenemy, which also discusses the actions taken by the libraries concerned in response to the challenges.

Although this study is also a good example of the use of Freedom of Information legislation to shine a light on the extent of censorship in libraries, and the protection that can be offered by a carefully developed and implemented collection development policy, it also reflects the fact that there is no room for complacency with regard to the state of intellectual freedom in UK public libraries.

Moreover, as new challenges and threats arise in line with new technological developments that offer ever greater opportunities for surveillance and more sophisticated and widespread data collection and analytics, the need for librarians to be constantly aware of their ethical responsibilities with regard to protection of user privacy and the protection of intellectual freedom will only become more acute.

A Right to Anonymity?

A Right to Anonymity - ImageWith recent reforms in Austria set to remove the possibility to leave anonymous comments on the internet, the question of the right to anonymity is on the agenda.

The justification for the reforms in Austria is concern about the rise of ‘hate speech’, and the sense that anonymity can give people the possibility to spread discriminatory views without consequences. If there’s a risk of being identified and caught, the argument goes, people will moderate their speech.

Civil liberties groups have, however, opposed this, pointing out that it is often the usual victims of hate speech – marginalised groups, those in vulnerable positions – who have benefitted most from the opportunity to use the Internet without giving up their identities.

How does this affect libraries, both as concerns their values and their practice?

Anonymity is included as a concept in IFLA’s own Statement on Intellectual Freedom, which is celebrating its 20th Anniversary this year:

‘Library users shall have the right to personal privacy and anonymity. Librarians and other library staff shall not disclose the identity of users or the materials they use to a third party’.

Talking about privacy and anonymity is perhaps a little awkward. In effect, anonymity is rather one means – a particularly effective one – of ensuring privacy. If you are never identified in what you do, then there is no possibility of someone else learning about your preferences or activities.

For example, it is the difference between paying for your groceries with a credit or debit card, and paying with cash. Paying with a card leaves a trace which a shop or card provider can use to build a profile. Paying with cash leaves no trace. It is far easier to be anonymous in the latter case.

 

Of course, privacy can be achieved without anonymity. There are conditions under which personal data collection is acceptable – and even desirable.

Indeed, this is recognised in legislation such as the General Data Protection Regulation in Europe. This both looks to ensure that no more data is collected than necessary (data minimisation), and that what data is collected is done with consent, and then stored and used properly.

In short, privacy implies a mixture of anonymity in some cases, and careful and ethical collection and management of data in others.

The question then is of how to decide when we should opt for anonymity, and when not, acknowledging that the highest level of privacy comes from keeping people anonymous.

 

Anonymity vs Data Protection

There are some interesting examples in the wider world that offer some insights into this question. For example, it is seen as normal that we need to identify ourselves in order to buy and drive a car. Nonetheless, the list of who owns which car is not made public.

However, if we were asked for the same in order to ride a bicycle, this would seem shocking.

Why is this? The reason likely lies in the fact that it is far more likely that someone can do harm in a car than on a bicycle. In order to catch those who are driving too fast, or causing accidents, giving the police a means of identifying the owner of a car can be seen as justifiable (if not perfect).

A second example comes from contrasting medical records with information about how someone travels around within a country.

We generally accept that medical professionals should have access to records about allergies, conditions and past treatment in order to improve our care. We of course expect that these are properly looked after.

In contrast, in most parts of the world, we don’t expect to be tracked as we move around within the cities, regions or countries we live in. While, of course, our phones often do this for us, when we become aware of it, we often remember to update our settings to prevent this.

In short, while there may be some situations where being tracked is helpful (for example to find missing people or to make using online maps easier), many given the option will choose anonymity.

In this case, even though medical information is arguably far more personal than travel information, we accept this breach of anonymity because it brings real benefits.

What about libraries?

Many libraries do not require identification for someone to be able to enter a building and use resources on site (although policies do vary when it comes to using library computers). However, in order to borrow books, a library card is necessary, implying a loss of anonymity.

The justification is that lending only works when there are limits on what any individual can borrow, and that there is a time-limit on this. This is only possible with an account attached to a person.

The IFLA statement implicitly recognises this divergent approach, accepting that in addition to anonymity in some circumstances, libraries will also hold personal information which could (but shouldn’t, at least not without consent) be shared with third parties.

How does this choice apply when it comes to using – and expressing yourself – on the internet?

 

The Man Without an IP Address

Clearly the argument of the Austrian government is that the harm done by online hate speech is cause enough to oblige people to use their real names.

At first, this logic is attractive. Hate speech does indeed do harm to people who may already be vulnerable, and it is important to stop it when it risks leading to real harm.

However, it is not necessarily the case that identifying a person stops this from happening – in the end, it is taking down the content itself that resolves the issue. This can be done through notice and (transparent) moderation.

The subject of hate speech itself is also difficult. While there may be some black-and-white cases, there are many more nuanced ones where it is hard to draw a clear distinction. Just because something is rude or offensive for some, it does not necessarily make it hate-speech.

This recalls the situation with other reasons often given for restricting content, such as security (many governments claim that any criticism of their actions is a security threat) or morality (used in many situations to repress LBGTQI expression).

It is clear of course that perhaps some sources of hate speech will think twice if they need to share their identities. But this does not necessarily stop them holding such views, or carrying out acts motivated by them.

Furthermore, we also have to accept that removing the right to anonymity risks opening the doors to other moves away from anonymity as default, and so weakening a key protection for vulnerable individuals and groups.

People who have found a community and a voice online that has been denied to them in the physical world risk losing it when their names are shared. Through this, they can become the victims of attacks on their persons and property.

At a less extreme level, the feeling of being watched can have a chilling effect on online behaviour, restricting people’s ability to follow their interests and develop their personalities. In any case, for a democratic government to take such a step, even for the most honest of intentions, simply risks legitimatising those who will use restrictions on anonymity to crack down on diversity and dissent.

 

The implication of the General Data Protection Regulation, as well as of IFLA’s Statements on Intellectual Freedom and Privacy in the Library Environment is that the default in any situation should be the highest possible level of privacy – i.e. anonymity.

It follows that the collection of data should be the exception, not the rule, and in this case be justified, with cases such as that of Austria provide an opportunity to remind ourselves what’s at stake.

Nonetheless, decisions about when it is acceptable to derogate from anonymity also appear in the work of libraries. It is important to be conscious of these, in order to take the best decisions for users.

Four Dimensions of Data Protection in Libraries

Scandals around the collection and use of personal information appear to be reaching a critical mass.

The first cases brought against companies under the General Data Protection Regulation are coming to court in Europe, and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has declared that he wants to focus more on privacy. Stories of major data breaches regularly hit the headlines.

After many years of concern that ‘privacy’ was a niche thing, a priority only for a vocal few, it is now the subject of growing attention.

At least in the library world, the importance of privacy is well established. We know that it facilitates free speech and access to information, helps protect users from having their internet experience channelled for commercial reasons, and allows us to function as people.

Yet like all human rights, privacy – and more specifically data protection in terms of control over what data is collected about you and how it is used – is not necessarily an absolute right. Instead, it can be exercised only so far as it does not stand in the way of other rights and interests (and vice versa).

This blog, therefore, sets out four ‘dimensions’ of the privacy debate where libraries, in their work, have to find the right balance.

 

Privacy vs Performance

Much of the excitement around the data revolution has come from its potential to help us understand more about the world and make more accurate predictions.

Clearly a focus on measurement as a tool for performance improvement pre-dates the digital age. However, the new technological possibilities to track individuals’ behaviour have made it far more tempting to use data to try to redesign services or products, including for libraries.

However, there are ethical challenges around the tracking of individuals (not least library users). While the intention may be to improve services, it is not without cost. Tracking can involve a violation of privacy (especially when it’s not clearly explained), and a restriction on personal responsibility of users, such as students.

Moreover, it is not necessarily the case that the measurements made are appropriate. We often focus rather on what can be measured (pages read, downloads, time spent in the library) rather than less easily gauged, but more meaningful, things (understanding, skills development). This can lead to misallocation of effort.

A careful judgement needs therefore to be made around where it can be appropriate to collect data, ensuring not only transparency, but also protection of users.

 

Privacy vs Price

While the idea of surrendering privacy in order to save money can sound cynical, it is in effect what we are doing when we use many free services online.

In the US, there has been the suggestion that consumers can choose between a high-privacy, more expensive internet connection package, and a cheaper one where user data is sold on to advertisers and others.

This choice may not always be explicit, but vendors with whom libraries work can and do collect data about library user behaviour. It is reasonable to think that without this possibility, they would charge more for the services provided, in order to maintain revenues.

It is not always an easy decision, especially when budgets are tight, but libraries a need to take well-judged, conscious decisions, and of course give users the tools and possibility to do the same.

 

Privacy vs Public Interest

The concept of ‘public interest’ can be a fair reason for taking steps that limit rights. The imprisonment of violent criminals for example – depriving them of many of their freedoms – makes life safer for everyone else.

Where there is a genuine reason, due and transparent process is followed, and restrictions are proportionate, there can be a case for restricting privacy too. The challenge is that all of these terms are at least partially subjective, and require careful (and well-explained) judgement in order to be used properly.

Too often, the ‘public interest’ can also serve as a justification for disproportionate limitations on rights, for example mass-surveillance. This makes it a difficult area for institutions with a strong commitment to freedoms and privacy.

Libraries of course are institutions operating under the law, and cannot be expected to break it. However, within these limits, there can be means of ensuring that privacy is protected, such as through the deletion of data, or allowing anonymous internet browsing.

The key, once again, is to find the right balance. There is of course no simple answer, but it is clear that privacy must be born in mind, and restrictions kept to a minimum.

 

Privacy vs Preservation

A final debate focuses more on library content itself. Inevitably, any library charged with collecting information that documents contemporary society and thinking will acquire books, journals, newspapers, webpages and other materials that contain information about people.

Much of this – dealing with biographical detail or political views for example – counts as personally identifiable information. While libraries’ activities in this area, strictly speaking, count as a ‘violation’ of privacy, it is one that is necessary for them to do their jobs.

Indeed, thanks to the collection and preservation of such materials, it is possible to ensure as complete a historical record as possible for the benefit of the researchers and readers of the future. It also helps promote, for example, the accountability of politicians or other influential people.

IFLA has therefore been highly cautious around concepts such as the ‘right to be forgotten’ and the ‘right to erasure’. This is not to say that, as part of professional codes of ethics, librarians shouldn’t take care with information that is sensitive. Indeed, this is where the debate should be, not around the deletion, pure and simple, of work.

 

Perhaps depressingly, this blog serves only to set out questions rather than answers. The questions are also hard, at least for those defending privacy, given that the case ‘against’ in each example can seem attractive –higher-performing services, a greater budget for acquisitions, safer societies, and the preservation of the historical record.

Nonetheless, privacy cannot be sacrificed, given the fundamental impact it has on the way we live our lives, and of course use libraries. The job of librarians – and of IFLA – is to help find the right balance.