Library Patron Privacy in Jeopardy An analysis of the privacy policies of digital content vendors ASIS&T General Meeting 2015 April Lambert, Michelle Parker & Masooda Bashir

Introduction Patron privacy has long been a core value for librarians. Privacy is fundamental for intellectual freedom. Privacy is essential for free speech, thought and association. “We protect each library user’s right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and references consulted, borrowed, acquired, or transmitted.” ALA Code of Ethics

Introduction Library patron privacy is not just about protecting borrower records. Many patrons now view and borrow digital materials through library websites.

Patron Privacy for Digital Materials Patrons may download e-magazines, borrow e-books, view videos, and listen to music. Most libraries offer digital material services through third party sites. This creates multiple points where library patrons’ personal identifying information (PII) may be gathered.

Patron Privacy for Digital Materials How is patron privacy being protected at these multiple sites for information gathering? Do public library patrons have any way of knowing if their privacy is being protected?

Research Questions Are digital content vendor privacy policies accessible and understandable to public library patrons? - Do they even have a privacy policy? Do digital content vendor privacy policies meet the standards of the library community? Do these privacy policies meet other industry standards?

Methodology Visited websites of the top 25 American public libraries and gathered list of all digital resources linked on those sites The top 25 American public libraries were determined by population served data available on the website of the American Library Association Differentiated between digital vendors and digital resources – examined privacy policies of most-used digital vendors

Methodology - Vendors

Methodology - Codebook Based primarily on codebook used by Trina Magi in her review of academic library vendors (Magi, T. J. (2010). A content analysis of library vendor privacy policies: do they meet our standards?. College & Research Libraries, 71 (3), ) Revised after test run; added questions re: security and software platforms Two of the authors reviewed each policy The small number of coders made it difficult to calculate intercoder reliability index, but any question with less than 80% agreement was thrown out

Methodology - Sources Library profession standards American Library Association's Code of Ethics & supporting policies International Coalition of Library Consortia guidelines International Information Protection Standards Fair Information Practices (FIPs)

Methodology - Criteria American Library Association Code of Ethics Libraries should adopt policies to keep patron Personal Identifying Information in library records confidential Patrons should be informed of why Personal Identifying Information is collected and how it is being kept confidential Libraries should limit the information they collect, avoid creating unnecessary records, and maintain the privacy of records Libraries should conduct regular privacy audits

Methodology - Criteria International Coalition of Library Consortia Guidelines (2002) Echoes most of the American Library Association’s guidelines Specifically states that standards apply to library vendors Requires vendors to specifically state compliance with American Library Association’s Code of Ethics Vendors must limit data collection and regularly review privacy policies to comply with American Library Association’s standards Library patrons must be able to access sites even if they decline to allow Personal Identifying Information to be collected Vendors must maintain full control over their sites so that third parties, including advertisers, cannot violate patron privacy

Methodology - Criteria Fair Information Practices Fair Information Practices are internationally recognized practices relating to the privacy of an individual’s information. (1) Notice/Awareness (2) Choice/Consent (3) Access/Participation (4) Integrity/Security (5) Enforcement/Redress

Analysis – Accessibility & Comprehension ” easily understood by an average 11-year old, easily understood by year old, 0-30 best understood by university graduates

Analysis – Reasons for Collecting PII

Analysis – Reasons for Sharing PII Reasons for SharingNumber of Vendors To monitor compliance4 To protect the safety of employees and/or the public4 To process commercial transactions3 In relation to a legal proceeding3 In connection with a sale or merger3 For advertising and promotion2 For research and/or development2 To administer or protect the website and/or the server1 Other general reasons1

Analysis – User Consent and Access # of Vendors % of Vendors % Intercoder Agreement Contact information provided5100 States that provision of PII is voluntary User may view PII held by vendor User may contest accuracy or completeness of PII held by vendor User may delete all PII held by vendor Vendor allows access when user denies permission to distribute PII 12080

Analysis – Enforcement Number of Vendors% of Vendor s Intercod er Agreem ent Explanation of how policy enforced Affirmation of ALA Code of Ethics Vendor states that they conduct privacy audit Vendor regularly reviews enforcement of privacy policy Yes Doesn’t say480 Vendor states which media platforms are compatible Vendor references privacy policy of a media platform 00100

Analysis – Security & Data Storage 4 of the 5 policies claimed to take steps to protect patron PII, but none specified where data was stored 1 of the 5 policies referenced transmittal of records across borders (to comply with European Union’s safe harbor requirements for transborder information transfers) 4 of the 5 policies stated that data was encrypted; 3 specifically mentioned SSL Some vendors may address these topics in separate security related policies

Conclusions Public library digital content vendors’ privacy policies are generally easily accessible, though difficult to comprehend. Digital content vendors are more likely to meet industry FIPs guidelines, which focus on notice and consent, and less likely to meet the library profession guidelines, which require positive actions to protect library patrons’ privacy.

Limitations and Future Directions Repeat the study with a larger sample size Have more coders on the project Development of a publically available code book. Make the transitions between library websites and vendor websites more apparent. Develop negotiation guidelines for use by libraries and vendors

Acknowledgments Thank you to Trina Magi for sharing her work with us. Questions? Michelle Parker April Lambert Dr. Masooda Bashir