By Charlotte Walden
We've all seen them. Every time we patiently wait to use that new
software program that we have just downloaded off the Internet, it is there. It
stands between us and our coveted application.
The “it” that is being referred to, of course, is none other than the
legally binding license agreement. You know, the one everyone clicks “agree”
to, but never reads the terms and conditions to. Yeah, that one. Yet, licensing
agreements are important and should be read, not ignored just because you want
the latest and greatest technology. The following provides a good example of
this principle: seek out what you do not understand/know.
What is about to unfold,
then, is a chilling tail of irony. A tale where those who are in a profession
to assist others in research, fail to research something for themselves. It is
a tale that teaches those who are not only in the library profession, but in
any other profession, about the importance of knowing and understanding
licensing agreements.
In her article, located in
the recent edition of American Libraries,
Deborah Caldwell-Stone accuses librarians of meeting a demand without fully
researching the effects of that demand (2012). Specifically, Caldwell-Stone is
refering to the agreement between Amazon and public libraries that allowed
users to borrow library books on their Kindles (2012).
Well, that’s not so bad
isn’t it? Shouldn’t we be happy that libraries will still be able to provide a
service in the digital age? Yes, but not when these agreements violate a user’s
privacy, like the Kindle, Amazon, and public library’s agreement does.
According to Caldwell-Stone,
[The
agreement between Amazon and digital publishers] govern users’ rights and
define the rules that control what can and cannot be
done with the ebook or other digital content.
Thus,
if the license that governs the library’s loan of the ebook requires the
library to track and retain user data associated with a particular ebook and
disclose that information to [Amazon], the library is obligated to track,
retain, and disclose that information…
(2012)
Wait!?!?!?!
Did that just say something about the “library tracking and retaining your
data” and “disclosing” it to Amazon? Yes, it did. And so, every time someone checks
out a book from the library on their Kindle, Amazon has access to that library
user’s information. (Caldwell-Stone, 2012) And aren’t librarians suppose to uphold users’
privacy rights?
Indeed they are, which is why some
librarians, even before Caldwell-Stone’s article came out, were very upset by
this arrangement (please see the video). As the LibrarianinBlack points out,
this lack of research on may have also broken a few laws (2012).
Yet,
as many have contended, licensing agreements are hard to understand (Patoway,
2012), which is probably why many of us just click. Or, as Caldwell-Stone
contends, in our haste to provide the latest and greatest service, we make
detrimental decisions. But, either excuse is a poor justification for not
learning what you are agreeing to. Library professionals should be ashamed of
such thinking. If you don’t understand a license agreement, find a way to
understand it.
In
this world of technology, we are used to instant gratification—and don’t think
companies do not love to use instant gratification against us—but instant
gratification has consequences that could affect us and our users. Thus, in our
professional lives, we should always research what it is we are agreeing to—as it
is legally binding—or else we will face the disdain of our peers, lawsuits and/or
lose the trust of our users.
References:
Caldwell-Stone, D. (2012,
May 29). A digital dilemma: E-books and user’s rights. American libraries. Retrieved from
http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/features/05292012/digital-dilemma-ebooks-and-users-rights.
LibrarianinBlack (2011,
October 18). Libraries got screwed by Amazon and Overdrive. YouTube video.
Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moy1w89TOss&feature=plcp.
Patowary, K. (2012, June 4). Make
EULAs easier to read with EULAlyzer. Instantfunds. Retrieved from http://www.instantfundas.com/2012/06/make-eulas-easier-to-read-with.html.
I don't understand how the argument that these agreements are bad means that libraries/librarians didn't know what they were agreeing to. As Caldwell-Stone's article points out, patrons wanted this service. Do you think that libraries should have refused the agreement?
ReplyDeleteI agree that the user privacy issues are significant, although apparently many users do not. Do you think that posting notices informing users of Amazon's policies is insufficient?
Erin: thanks for commenting!
ReplyDeleteCaldwell-Stone's article did in fact point out that patrons wanted this service. However, Caldwell-Stone's article also pointed out that librarians did not know of the privacy issue until after the fact; specifically, Caldwell suggested that librarians could have known about Amazon's arrangement had they done their research. To quote: "[t]he fact remains that libraries, anxious to provide users with a popular, in-demand service, did so without carefully evaluating the service’s impact on user privacy" (2012)." I thought the article was ironic because those who are upheld as research professionals, failed to throughly investigate the matter beforehand. So, it is not that these agreements were bad that caused libraries/librarians to be unaware of what they were agreeing to; librarians/libraries did not know what they were agreeing to because they did not fully investigate the matter. The instant gratification brought about by technology may be causing behavioral issues in humans. I am reminded of the old adage: haste makes waste.
The notices, then, were an act of cover for a wrong librarians/libraries had learned after the fact. For what it was, it was the best libraries could do.
The privacy issue in this article raises an ethical consideration: should I meet a demand at the expense of the trust of my patrons? Or should I deny the demand (and, perhaps, upset many) and up hold the trust of my patrons? If I had done the research (and who knows, maybe I would not have--hindsight is 50/50) and I discovered the potential privacy issue, I would like to think I would up hold the trust of my patrons.
On a final not, I'm not sure if that users believe privacy issues are insignificant; I think it is more that they are unaware of how significant they are.
I know she says that, I just don't see much evidence for that assertion. That some librarians didn't know doesn't mean that the library management/decision-makers didn't know. If it's true, then yes, that's a significant failure. But the fact that they took the deal does not mean that they didn't know what it meant - it's just as reasonable to think that they weighed both sides and decided that providing the option while informing their patrons was the best way to go.
ReplyDeleteYou say: "The privacy issue in this article raises an ethical consideration: should I meet a demand at the expense of the trust of my patrons? Or should I deny the demand (and, perhaps, upset many) and up hold the trust of my patrons?" But how many people actually think the library violated their trust by doing this? Honestly, I would be very surprised to find that many people felt that way. I don't even care, and I am a very private person (you won't find my photo or much personal information posted to social media sites, etc). And there's a good deal of evidence that younger generations, especially, have very different expectations of privacy.
Hi, Erin. Thanks for carrying on the discussion!
ReplyDeleteYes, there may be a lack of information to make the assertion that librarians did not weigh the pros and cons of signing onto the service: generalizations often do not cover every specific instance. There is also lack of evidence for the assertion that librarians (or the people in charge) did weigh the pros and cons of the service. Yet, it is also reasonable to think that maybe a little bit of both also happened. Either way, isn't it true that some humans do act on an impulse to offer the latest technology without thinking about the consequence? Since some librarians blog about the tendency to shy away from this very impulse (see: http://oedb.org/blogs/ilibrarian/2012/technology-solutions-planning-in-libraries-overview/), the tendency may be worth discussing--for some.
Also, while you may not care about privacy issues, it does not mean that others do not care (and let's not make hasty generalizations about the younger generation[I'm assuming you are talking about their use of social media?] either--I'm sure you can find some who do care). It may be true that some people may be shocked to learn that Amazon has/had access to their library records; they may have come to place trust in their libraries to keep their information private--just like they would expect out of a doctor/patient relationship. And even though there are people who do not care about their privacy, what's the harm in bringing it to their attention anyway? They can always chose to ignore it.
I generally avoid making all or none statements, and you'll notice that I didn't do that. However, you can say absolutely anything about "some" people. There are lots of humans, and they hold a wide variety of opinions. But libraries (or any other institution for that matter) can't formulate policy based on that.
DeleteAnd there's nothing "hasty" about my statement that younger generations do not have the same expectations of privacy. Numerous studies have been done. The very first result (of more than 4.2 million) of a Google search for "expectation privacy Millennials" is http://www.brandchannel.com/images/papers/531_aimia_wp_gen_y_1011.pdf. Pages 14-15 compare the attitude of Millennials to that of older generations on a variety of privacy issues (specifically focused on business), and concludes that "Millennials are less concerned about data privacy overall" (Aimia 2011, p. 14). But most people, Millennial or otherwise, do want to know what data is collected, and of course they should be informed.
Reference:
Aimia, Inc. (2011). Born This Way: The US Millennial Loyalty Survey. Retrieved from http://www.brandchannel.com/images/papers/531_aimia_wp_gen_y_1011.pdf.
But I do see your point about the people in charge keeping those lower on the hierarchy scale in the dark.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to privacy issues, I think that there will be some people who do care and would be offended that Amazon had access to the library user's information. Let's say a woman was to check out a book about divorce at her local library and the library was to disclose this information to the woman's husband without her knowledge or permission simply because they are married. Now, what if the man didn't have any idea that his wife was looking into divorce? He goes home and causes this big argument with his wife and practically destroys his marriage when it turns out his wife didn't check the book out for herself but so she could help a friend. Personally, there is a fine line that must be walked in order to allow information to be given out freely. Libraries should (and could) make it clear for users that there information is accessible to Amazon and other providers. At this point, it should be up to the library user if they want to utilize the service or not depending on privacy issues.
ReplyDelete-Lindsay Fricke
Well, libraries shouldn't do that. Are they?
DeleteWe are agreed that libraries need to inform their patrons about what information is available to Amazon, etc. The Caldwell-Stone article says they are.
No, libraries do not do this as it goes against privacy issues. Hence, this is the point of the whole argument with Amazon and libraries. How much information should they be able to get about users who are borrowing e-books?
Delete-Lindsay F.
In the article, "Library licensing and criminal law: the Aaron Swartz case," Sims (2011) explained:
ReplyDeleteMost of our users honestly don't understand that our contracts, rather than providing free and unlimited access to licensed resources for all purposes, often provide access only up to usage limits implemented by vendors, and often provide access only for personal use. Perhaps this means that we need to negotiate license terms that are more in line with user expectations for our services; perhaps it means that we need to better educate our users about what access
our contracts really provide. (p. 536)
Perhaps, this is something that libraries should take into consideration before signing a contract with publishers.
-Lindsay Fricke
References:
Sims, N. (2011). Library licensing and criminal law: the Aaron Swartz case. College and research libraries news, 72(9), 534-537. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=llf&AN=525514766&site=ehost-live
Charlotte, thanks for you post.
ReplyDeleteEver since I saw that episode of South Park (NSF, well, you should probably know by now if South Park offends you) I always read the EULA. You never know what you're going to get yourself into.
To be honest, I'm a little annoyed with myself for not having figured out that of course Amazon.com would require user data even if that user is borrowing the book via a library. I'm used to it, though, since I purchase books from Amazon.com almost exclusively. Erin brings up a great point on the expectation of privacy. I, personally, have very little. I imagine my children won't even understand what it is. We click "accept" without a thought, giving away our privacy bit by bit to just about everyone.
That doesn't make this scenario OK. The ALA is very specific about privacy and confidentiality and I find it absurd that libraries would jump into agreements with companies that explicitly violate one of the core tenets of librarianship.