‘‘ A
By engaging collectively, transparently, and ethically with usage data, we can ensure that libraries remain sanctuaries of knowledge in the 21st century.
The weaponisation of library data: What you need to know
Alongside the well-known and well-documented problems academic libraries already have with some licensing agreements, a less-watched threat to libraries is growing, and the sector needs to prepare for it, says Caroline Ball, Academic Librarian at the University of Derby and campaigner for #Ebooksos.
CADEMIC and public libraries have undergone a significant transformation in recent years. The shift
from traditional print collections to digital resources, including ebooks, journals, databases, and more, has brought about unprecedented opportunities for information access and research. However, this digital landscape has also given rise to a pressing concern: the potential weaponisation of library data.
In the print world, we would never allow publishers to peer over readers’ shoulders to see what sections they read, how long they spent on chapters, what notes they took, or what index terms they looked up. This would be an unacceptable invasion of privacy. Yet in the digital realm, through licensing models rather than outright pur- chase, publishers and vendors reserve a level of surveillance over usage that would not be tolerated with physical materials. In addition to the privacy issues, they can also leverage this access to collect valuable data that informs and shapes commercial operations.
Data extractivism: A cause for concern
The phenomenon often referred to as “data extractivism” deserves our immediate attention. A recent report by SPARC (http://
tinyurl.com/6m33vap3) investigating Science- Direct’s data practices in the US found extensive collection of user data, including usage, location, and behavioural data, as well as its disclosure to third parties and
use in targeted advertising. This exem- plifies the concerning potential for data extractivism and monetisation of library usage data.
The SPARC report says: “Based on our
findings, many of ScienceDirect’s data pri- vacy practices directly conflict with library privacy standards and guidelines. The data privacy practices identified in our analysis are like the practices found in many businesses and organisations that track and harvest user data to sustain privacy-in- trusive data-driven business models. The widespread data collection, user tracking and surveillance, and disclosure of user data inherent to these business models run counter to the library’s commitment to user privacy as specified in the ALA Code of Ethics, Library Bill of Rights, and the IFLA Statement on Privacy in the Library Environment.”
While the authors of the report say their “analysis cannot definitively con- firm whether personal data derived from academic products is currently being used in data brokering or ‘risk’ products,” they say the potential for it is enough, adding that “ScienceDirect’s privacy practices highlight the need to be aware of this risk, which is not mitigated by privacy policy revisions or potential verbal assurances concerning specific data uses. Privacy policies can be changed unilaterally, and denials are not legally binding. To be meaningful, any privacy guarantee a ven- dor makes must be durable, verifiable, and not limited to a particular jurisdiction.”
Different in the UK?
While UK GDPR legislation restricts the use of identifiable personal information, protecting those of us in the UK and EU
Caroline Ball.
from some of the worst excesses detailed in the SPARC report, it has inadvertently led to a misconception that anonymised data is harmless. On the contrary, the aggregated mass of anonymised usage data still has immense value for monetisation and exploitation. However, most licences barely address this unidentified aggregate data, instead focusing on personal data protections that are covered under existing regulations.
This type of data extractivism should con- cern libraries deeply. We do not have full transparency into what user data is being collected, who accesses it, and how it is monetised. Our licences are with platforms and vendors, not publishers. We rely on vendor-provided statistics like COUNTER for collection analysis, but there is likely much more granular data being supplied to publishers that falls outside of this.
11
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
