Comments on: Google exposes Booksearch patron records http://fstutzman.com/2009/05/12/google-exposes-booksearch-patron-records/ Thoughts about information, social networks, and privacy Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:54:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: michaelzimmer.org » Stutzman: Google exposes Book Search patron records http://fstutzman.com/2009/05/12/google-exposes-booksearch-patron-records/comment-page-1/#comment-17317 michaelzimmer.org » Stutzman: Google exposes Book Search patron records Thu, 14 May 2009 05:14:41 +0000 http://fstutzman.com/?p=1773#comment-17317 [...] Fred Stutzman revealed a particularly troublesome example of how relying on the “My Library” feature of Google [...] [...] Fred Stutzman revealed a particularly troublesome example of how relying on the “My Library” feature of Google [...]

]]> By: fred http://fstutzman.com/2009/05/12/google-exposes-booksearch-patron-records/comment-page-1/#comment-17303 fred Thu, 14 May 2009 01:26:14 +0000 http://fstutzman.com/?p=1773#comment-17303 Tyler: Until a few days ago, there were no such things as public Facebook pages, so no. The Google "My Library" feature is just that, a collection of books a user adds to their personal library. There is nothing inherently social about this feature; it works just as well privately, semi-privately, or publicly. I'm glad you prefer a world where the default is public. That is your personal opinion and you're certainly entitled. The problem with applying this to Google Booksearch is that 1) the default is the only option and 2) marginalized populations, people who seek privacy, or users unaware of the ins and outs of "sharing" are placed at risk due to unintentional disclosure. Fixing this problem doesn't stop people from contributing "to the effort of finding great content on the web." It simply corrects a bad policy with bad defaults, one that was likely enacted to make this product seem "social." Finally, if we want to make analogies, then browsing books in GB is analogous to browsing your library bookshelves. Adding them to your personal library for reference is not exactly the same thing as checking them out, but as GB attempts to monetize book access (i.e. a user will have to check a book out to access full text), then it will be very near parity. I can imagine that libraries that license the GB corpus will feel very strongly that a "digital checkout" should not generate a public record. Tyler:
Until a few days ago, there were no such things as public Facebook pages, so no.

The Google “My Library” feature is just that, a collection of books a user adds to their personal library. There is nothing inherently social about this feature; it works just as well privately, semi-privately, or publicly.

I’m glad you prefer a world where the default is public. That is your personal opinion and you’re certainly entitled. The problem with applying this to Google Booksearch is that 1) the default is the only option and 2) marginalized populations, people who seek privacy, or users unaware of the ins and outs of “sharing” are placed at risk due to unintentional disclosure.

Fixing this problem doesn’t stop people from contributing “to the effort of finding great content on the web.” It simply corrects a bad policy with bad defaults, one that was likely enacted to make this product seem “social.”

Finally, if we want to make analogies, then browsing books in GB is analogous to browsing your library bookshelves. Adding them to your personal library for reference is not exactly the same thing as checking them out, but as GB attempts to monetize book access (i.e. a user will have to check a book out to access full text), then it will be very near parity. I can imagine that libraries that license the GB corpus will feel very strongly that a “digital checkout” should not generate a public record.

]]> By: tyler http://fstutzman.com/2009/05/12/google-exposes-booksearch-patron-records/comment-page-1/#comment-17296 tyler Thu, 14 May 2009 00:24:05 +0000 http://fstutzman.com/?p=1773#comment-17296 Something tells me that you don't have a public Facebook or MySpace profile page? :) I don't use the My Library feature on Google Books but I'm pretty sure that it is designed as a way for users to share with others what their favorite books are. It takes an explicit user action to add a click to that list. It is not analogous at all to a list of books that you check out or read at your local library. The list of books that you read on Google Books aren't made public in any way that I can tell. If I wanted to bookmark some favorite books on a site like Google Books in a private way, I'd just add the pages as bookmarks in my browser. It's just a web site after all. Personally, I prefer a world where the default is "public" and everyone can contribute to the effort of finding great content on the web. That's the beauty of sites like Facebook and MySpace. Something tells me that you don’t have a public Facebook or MySpace profile page? :) I don’t use the My Library feature on Google Books but I’m pretty sure that it is designed as a way for users to share with others what their favorite books are. It takes an explicit user action to add a click to that list. It is not analogous at all to a list of books that you check out or read at your local library. The list of books that you read on Google Books aren’t made public in any way that I can tell. If I wanted to bookmark some favorite books on a site like Google Books in a private way, I’d just add the pages as bookmarks in my browser. It’s just a web site after all. Personally, I prefer a world where the default is “public” and everyone can contribute to the effort of finding great content on the web. That’s the beauty of sites like Facebook and MySpace.

]]> By: fred http://fstutzman.com/2009/05/12/google-exposes-booksearch-patron-records/comment-page-1/#comment-17261 fred Wed, 13 May 2009 17:21:10 +0000 http://fstutzman.com/?p=1773#comment-17261 Good deal. There are a number of other inconsistencies in the Booksearch FAQ/Help docs. Let's hope that this policy can get fixed as fast as that 404! Good deal. There are a number of other inconsistencies in the Booksearch FAQ/Help docs.

Let’s hope that this policy can get fixed as fast as that 404!

]]> By: wjr http://fstutzman.com/2009/05/12/google-exposes-booksearch-patron-records/comment-page-1/#comment-17260 wjr Wed, 13 May 2009 17:16:39 +0000 http://fstutzman.com/?p=1773#comment-17260 The 404 link you pointed out has now been fixed. The 404 link you pointed out has now been fixed.

]]> By: fred http://fstutzman.com/2009/05/12/google-exposes-booksearch-patron-records/comment-page-1/#comment-17245 fred Wed, 13 May 2009 13:01:57 +0000 http://fstutzman.com/?p=1773#comment-17245 Practically, libraries are limited by the records they keep. This is why many libraries either expunge or maintain records for a specified period. While a number of states have laws that protect library records, there is no way a library can feasibly get around subpoenas or extra-legal procedures such as National Security Letters. Of course, the adoption and maintenance of privacy policies (and records management policies) are individual to the library and system. So there will be variation in adoption and enforcement. I've been very pleased with UNC's libraries, as they make a special effort to inform the patron every time a transferrable record is created. Practically, libraries are limited by the records they keep. This is why many libraries either expunge or maintain records for a specified period. While a number of states have laws that protect library records, there is no way a library can feasibly get around subpoenas or extra-legal procedures such as National Security Letters.

Of course, the adoption and maintenance of privacy policies (and records management policies) are individual to the library and system. So there will be variation in adoption and enforcement. I’ve been very pleased with UNC’s libraries, as they make a special effort to inform the patron every time a transferrable record is created.

]]> By: Graeme Williams http://fstutzman.com/2009/05/12/google-exposes-booksearch-patron-records/comment-page-1/#comment-17241 Graeme Williams Wed, 13 May 2009 12:29:48 +0000 http://fstutzman.com/?p=1773#comment-17241 As far as I'm concerned, libraries have no credibility whatsoever when it comes to protecting patron privacy. I'd hope that libraries would only hand over patron records in response to a court order -- such as a warrant or subpoena. The ALA's weasel words about "administrative discovery procedures" simply illuminate the possibility of warrantless searches. Something the ALA is apparently happy to go along with. The town I live in has some number of illegal immigrants. I don't see how the library could say with a straight face that it won't turn over names and addresses to the USCIS (aka INS). The library, by the way, does not publish a privacy policy on its web site. As far as I’m concerned, libraries have no credibility whatsoever when it comes to protecting patron privacy. I’d hope that libraries would only hand over patron records in response to a court order — such as a warrant or subpoena. The ALA’s weasel words about “administrative discovery procedures” simply illuminate the possibility of warrantless searches. Something the ALA is apparently happy to go along with.

The town I live in has some number of illegal immigrants. I don’t see how the library could say with a straight face that it won’t turn over names and addresses to the USCIS (aka INS). The library, by the way, does not publish a privacy policy on its web site.

]]>