Advancing Patron Privacy on Vendor Systems with a Shared Understanding

Posted on     8 minute read

× This article was imported from this blog's previous content management system (WordPress), and may have errors in formatting and functionality. If you find these errors are a significant barrier to understanding the article, please let me know.

Last week I had the pleasure of presenting a short talk at the second virtual meeting of the NISO effort to reach a Consensus Framework to Support Patron Privacy in Digital Library and Information Systems. The slides from the presentation are below and on SlideShare, followed by a cleaned-up transcript of my remarks.

It looks like in the agenda that I’m batting in the clean-up role, and my message might be pithily summarized as “Can’t we all get along?” A core tenet of librarianship -- perhaps dating back to the 13th and 14th century when this manuscript was illuminated -- is to protect the activity trails of patrons from unwarranted and unnecessary disclosure.

This is embedded in the ethos of librarianship. As Todd pointed out in the introduction, third principle of the American Library Association's Code of Ethics states: "We protect each library user's right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted." Librarians have performed this duty across time and technology, and as both have progressed the profession has sought new ways to protect the privacy of patrons.

For instance, there was once a time when books had a pocket in the back that held a card showing who had checked out the book and when it was due. Upon checkout the card was taken out, had the patron's name embossed or written on it, and was stored in a date-sorted file so that the library knew when it was due and who had it checked out. When the book was returned, the name was scratched through before putting the card in the pocket and the book on the shelf. Sometimes, as a process shortcut, the name was left “in the clear” on the card, and anyone that picked the book off the shelf could look on the card to see who had checked it out.

When libraries automated their circulation management with barcodes and database records, the card in the back of the book and the information it disclosed was no longer necessary. This was hailed as one of the advantages to moving to a computerized circulation system. While doing away with circulation cards eliminated one sort of privacy leakage -- patrons being able to see what each other had checked out -- it enabled another: systematic collection of patron activity in a searchable database. Many automation systems put in features that automatically removed the link between patron and item after it was checked in. Or, if that information was stored for a period of time, it was password protected so only approved staff could view the information. Some, however, did not, and this became a concern with the passage of the USA PATRIOT act by the United States Congress.

We are now in an age where patron activity is scattered across web server log files, search histories, and usage analytics of dozens of systems, some of which are under the direct control of the library while others are in the hands of second and third party service providers. Librarians that are trying to do their due diligence in living up to the third principle of the Code of Ethics have a more difficult time accounting for all of the places where patron activity is collected. It has also become more difficult for patrons to make informed choices about what information is collected about their library activity and how it is used.

In the mid-2000s, libraries and content providers had a similar problem: the constant one-off negotiation of license terms was a burden to all parties involved. In order to gain new efficiencies in the process of acquiring and selling licensed content, representatives from the library and publisher communities came together under a NISO umbrella to reach a shared understanding of what the terms of an agreement would be and a registry of organizations that ascribed to those terms. Quoting from the forward of the 2012 edition: “The Shared Electronic Resource Understanding (SERU) Recommended Practice offers a mechanism that can be used as an alternative to a license agreement. The SERU statement expresses commonly shared understandings of the content provider, the subscribing institution and authorized users; the nature of the content; use of materials and inappropriate uses; privacy and confidentiality; online performance and service provision; and archiving and perpetual access. Widespread adoption of the SERU model for many electronic resource transactions offers substantial benefits both to publishers and libraries by removing the overhead of bilateral license negotiation.”

One of SERU’s best qualities is its brevity, and that is likely a significant factor in its success. For instance, the "Confidentiality and Privacy" section states -- in its entirety -- these two sentences: “The acquiring institution and the provider respect the privacy of the users of the content and will not disclose or distribute personal information about the user to any third party without the user’s consent unless required to do so by law. The provider should develop and post its privacy policy on its website.” As the complexity of the online information landscape increased, this two sentence paragraph is not sufficient to describe an understanding between library and information provider. Here are some examples of this complexity.

One of the features of the HTTP protocol -- the mechanism used by web browsers to get content from web servers -- is for the browser to tell the server how it knew to ask for the web page or image file or JavaScript file on that server. This is called the "Referer" header. Does your library catalog include a link to add a book to an Amazon wishlist? Does your library catalog page load a book cover image from Syndetic Solutions? If so, the address of the catalog page is included in those HTTP transactions with Amazon and Syndetic Solutions as the “Referer” header. What is in that library catalog URL? Are the patron’s search terms in that link? Is there personally identifiable information?

Today's web service is filled with social sharing widgets (Facebook, Twitter, and the like), web analytics tools (Google Analytics), and content from advertising syndicates. While these tools provide useful services to the patrons, libraries and service providers, they also become centralized points of data gathering that can aggregate a user’s activity across the web. Does your library catalog page include a Facebook “Like” button? Whether or not the patron clicks on that button, Facebook knows that user has browsed to that web page and can gleen details of user behavior from that. Does your service use Google Analytics to understand user behavior and demographics? Google Analytics tracks user behavior across an estimated one half of the sites on the internet. Your user’s activity as a patron of your services is commingled with their activity as a general user.

A “filter bubble” is phrase coined by Eli Pariser to describe a system that adapts its output based on what it knows about a user: location, past searches, click activity, and other signals. The system is using these signals to deliver what it deems to be more relevant information to the user. In order to do this, the system must gather, store and analyze this information from patrons. However, a patron may not want his or her past search history to affect their search results. Or, even worse, when activity is aggregated from a shared terminal, the results can be wildly skewed.

Simply using a library-subscribed service can transmit patron activity and intention to dozens of parties, and all of it invisible to the user. To uphold that third principle in the ALA Code of Ethics, librarians need to examine the patron activity capturing practices its information suppliers, and that can be as unwieldy as negotiating bilateral license agreements between each library and supplier. If we start from the premise that libraries, publishers and service providers want to serve the the patron’s information needs while respecting their desire to do so privately, what is needed is a shared understanding of how patron activity is captured, used, and discarded. A new gathering of librarians and providers could accomplish for patron activity what they did for electronic licensing terms a decade ago. One could imagine discussions around these topics:

What Information is Collected From the Patron: When is personally identifiable information captured in the process of using the provider's service. How is activity tagged to a particular patron -- both before and after the patron identifies himself or herself? Are search histories stored? Is the patron activity encrypted -- both in transit on the network and at rest on the server?

What Activity That Can Be Gleaned by Other Parties: If a patron follows a link to another website, how much of the context of the patron's activity is transferred to the new website. Are search terms included in the URL? Is personally identifiable information in the URL? Does the service provider employ social sharing tools or third party web analytics that can gather information about the patron's activity? Such activity could include IP address (and therefore rough geolocation), content of the web page, cross-site web cookies, and so forth.

How does patron activity influence service delivery: Is relevancy ranking altered based on the past activity of the user? Can the patron modify the search history to remove unwanted entries or segregate research activities from each other?

What is the disposition of patron activity data: Is a patron activity data anonymized and co-mingled with others? How is that information used and to whom is it disclosed? How long does the system keep patron activity data? Under what conditions would a provider release information to third parties?

It is arguably the responsibility of libraries to protect patron activity data from unwarranted collection and distribution. Service providers, too, want clear guidance from libraries so they can efficiently expend their efforts to develop systems that librarians feel comfortable promoting. To have each library and service provider audit this activity for each bilateral relationship would be inefficient and cumbersome. By coming to a shared understanding of how patron activity data is collected, used, and disclosed, libraries and service providers can advance their educational roles and offer tools to patrons to manage the disclosure of their activity.