If I were asked to justify my research topic..

Anticipating the question why does your research matter; or who cares about the topic you are devoting so much time to, I have been thinking of a few answers.

The topic is: What is the impact of digital technologies on the ability of librarians to protect user privacy.

So here are a few reasons why I think it is worthwhile:

  • Digital technologies have completely re-engineered the information environment and consequently redrawn the boundaries of informational privacy
  • Technology “does not only influence privacy by changing the accessibility of information, but also by changing the privacy norms themselves” (van den Hoven, Blaauw et al. 2014)
  • Librarians must ponder these new privacy norms, and need to do so as a professional community
  •  “We are not doing our job if we remain neutral when it comes to library technologies. Accepting many of the technologies available to support our missions means accepting technologies that are biased, not accessible, not protective of the privacy of our users, and not easily usable by some of our patrons” (Farkas 2017 p70)
  • The potential harms to the individual aswell as the potential harms to the public interest
  • Are librarians making optimal use of ICT to protect user privacy
  • Privacy’s ability to respond to problems created by technology and societal change is essential to its ongoing relevance (Mulligan, Koopman et al. 2016 p4)
  • To identify examples of good or best practice
  • Librarians and their users currently do not have a full understanding of what information companies are collecting
  • While innovation, administrative efficiency and the bottom line may be the priorities of librarians and vendors, they aren’t necessarily the primary concern of library users.
  • Technology must not drive our core professional values. The profession will lose, but more importantly, society will lose (McMenemy 2017)

References

FARKAS, M., 2017. Never neutral: critical librarianship and technology. American Libraries, (January/February), pp. 70.
MCMENEMY, D., 2017. Privacy, surveillance and the information profession: challenges, qualifications and dilemmas? Presentation at CILIP Privacy Briefing, 28 November 2017.
MULLIGAN, D.K., KOOPMAN, C. and DOTY, N., 2016. Privacy is an essentially contested concept: a multi-dimensional analytic for mapping privacy. Philosophical transactions.Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 374(2083), pp. 10.1098/rsta.2016.0118.
VAN DEN HOVEN, J., BLAAUW, M., PIETERS, W. and WARNIER, M., 2014. Privacy and information technology. In: E.N. ZALTA, ed, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Advertisements

Privacy theories

Author Theory Source
Agre, Philip E. & Rotenberg, Marc Conceptual framework for understanding interactions among technology, policy and economics (Rotenberg, Agre 1997)
Ajzen, Icek Theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen 2005)
Allen, Anita Unpopular privacy (Allen 2011)
Altman, Irwin Privacy regulation theory & social interaction theory (Altman 1977)
Bentham, Jeremy Panopticon (Bentham 1791)
Bloustein, Edward Individualistic theory (Bloustein 1978)
Chai, Sangmi Information privacy anxiety (Chai, Bagchi-Sen et al. 2009)
Clarke, Roger Four types of privacy (Clarke 1999)
Coase, Ronald Social cost. Coase Theorem (subtle interrelationships between property rights, transaction costs & liability). (Coase 1970)
DeCew, Judith Wagner Right to privacy; Cluster concept of privacy (DeCew 1997)
Dewey, John Relationship between individual and society (Dewey 1936)
Dinev, Tamara & Hart, Paul Privacy calculus theory (Dinev, Hart 2006)
Dwork, Cynthia Differential privacy (Dwork 2014)
Elhai, J. D. Anxiety model (Elhai, Levine et al. 2017)
Finn, Rachel L; Wright, David; Friedewald, Michael Seven privacy types (Finn, Wright et al. 2013)
Fishbein, Martin & Ajzen, Icek Theory of reasoned action (Ajzen, Fishbein 1980)
Floridi, Luciano Philosophy of information, including theory of ontological friction (Floridi 2014)
Foucault, Michel Surveillance & the panopticon metaphor (Foucault 1977)
Greene, Jennifer K. Privacy in and of itself is of little or no value; rather it’s what it protects that matters (Greene 2014)
Hart, H. L. A. Choice theory of rights/Will theory (Hart 1982)
Hartzog, Woodrow Obscurity (Hartzog, Stutzman 2013)
Hongladarom, Soraj Buddhist theory of privacy (Hongladarom 2016)
Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos Prospect theory (Kahneman, Tversky 1979)
Koops, Bert-Jaaps et al Typology of privacy (Koops, Newell et al. 2017)
Lessig, Lawrence Code as law (Lessig 2000)
Lyon, Professor David Social sorting (Lyon 2003)
Mai, Jens Erik Datafication (Mai 2016)
Nissenbaum, Helen Framework of contextual integrity (Nissenbaum 2010)
Parkinson & Millard Model of the digitally extended self (Parkinson, Millard et al. 2017)
Petronio, Sandra Communications privacy management (Petronio, Altman 2002)
Prosser, William Four privacy torts (Prosser 1960)
Rawls, John Theory of justice (including base of self-respect) (Rawls 2009)
Reiman, Jeffrey H. Privacy, intimacy & personhood (Reiman 1976)
Richards, Neil Intellectual privacy (Richards 2008)
Rickless, Samuel C. Barrier theory (Rickless 2007)
Rogers, R. W. Protection motivation theory (Rogers 1983)
Sekulovski, Jordanco Social networks theory of privacy (Sekulovski 2016)
Solove, Daniel No single workable definition of privacy. Instead there are multiple forms of privacy, related to one another by family resemblances (Solove 2008)
Spears, Janine L. Conceptualizes and identifies the “nothing to hide” persona (Spears, Erete 2014)
Stanton, Jeffrey Information boundary theory (Stanton 2003)
Stark, Luke Emotional context of informational privacy (Stark 2016)
Strahilevitz Lior Jacob Social networks theory of privacy (Strahilevitz 2005)
Warren, Samuel & Brandeis, Louis Right to be left alone (Warren, Brandeis 1890)
Westin, Alan People temporarily limiting access to themselves by others (Westin 1967)

Bibliography

AJZEN, I., 2005. Attitudes, personality, and behavior. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

AJZEN, I. and FISHBEIN, M., 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour.

ALLEN, A.L.1.[.A., 2011. Unpopular privacy : what must we hide? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

ALTMAN, I., 1977. Privacy regulation: Culturally universal or culturally specific? Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), pp. 66-84.

BENTHAM, J., 1791. Panopticon or the inspection house.

BLOUSTEIN, E.J., 1978. Individual and group privacy. New Brunswick, N. J.: Transaction Books.

CHAI, S., BAGCHI-SEN, S., MORRELL, C., RAO, H.R. and UPADHYAYA, S.J., 2009. Internet and online information privacy: An exploratory study of preteens and early teens. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 52(2), pp. 167-182.

CLARKE, R., 1999. Introduction to dataveillance and information privacy, and definitions of terms. Roger Clarke’s Dataveillance and Information Privacy Pages, .

COASE, R.H., 1970. Social cost and public policy. Exploring the Frontiers of Administration, .

DECEW, J.W., 1997. In pursuit of privacy: Law, ethics, and the rise of technology. Cornell University Press.

DEWEY, J., 1936. Liberalism and civil liberties. Social Frontier, 2, pp. 137-138.

DINEV, T. and HART, P., 2006. An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-Commerce Transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), pp. 61-80.

DWORK, C., 2014. 14 Differential Privacy: A Cryptographic Approach to Private Data Analysis. Privacy, Big Data, and the Public Good: Frameworks for Engagement, , pp. 296.

ELHAI, J.D., LEVINE, J.C., LEVINE, J.C., HALL, B.J. and HALL, B.J., 2017. Anxiety about electronic data hacking: predictors and relations with digital privacy protection behavior. Internet Research, 27(3), pp. 631-649.

FINN, R.L., WRIGHT, D. and FRIEDEWALD, M., 2013. Seven types of privacy. In: S. GUTWIRTH ET AL. (EDS.), ed, European Data Protection: Coming of Age. Springer Netherlands, pp. 3.

FLORIDI, L., 2014. The 4th revolution: how the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

FOUCAULT, M., 1977. Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. Pantheon Books.

GREENE, J.K., 2014. Before Snowden: privacy in an earlier digital age. International Journal of Philosophy and Theology, 2(1), pp. 93-118.

HART, H.L.A., 1982. Essays on Bentham: Jurisprudence and political philosophy. OUP Oxford.

HARTZOG, W. and STUTZMAN, F., 2013. The case for online obscurity. California Law Review, 101(1), pp. 1-49.

HONGLADAROM, S., 2016. A Buddhist theory of privacy. A Buddhist Theory of Privacy. Springer, pp. 57-84.

KAHNEMAN, D. and TVERSKY, A., 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, , pp. 263-291.

KOOPS, B., NEWELL, B.C., TIMAN, T., SKORVANEK, I., CHOKREVSKI, T. and GALIC, M., 2017. A typology of privacy. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 38(2),.

LESSIG, L., 2000. Code is law: on liberty in cyberspace. Harvard Magazine, (January),.

LYON, D., 2003. Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk, and digital discrimination. Psychology Press.

MAI, J., 2016. Big data privacy: the datafication of personal information. Information Society, 32(3), pp. 192-199.

NISSENBAUM, H.F., 2010. Privacy in context: technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Law.

PARKINSON, B., MILLARD, D.E., O’HARA, K. and GIORDANO, R., 2017. The digitally extended self: A lexicological analysis of personal data. Journal of Information Science, , pp. 0165551517706233.

PETRONIO, S. and ALTMAN, I., 2002. Boundaries of privacy.

PROSSER, W.L., 1960. Privacy. California law review, 48(3), pp. 383-423.

RAWLS, J., 2009. A theory of justice. Harvard university press.

REIMAN, J.H., 1976. Privacy, intimacy, and personhood. Philosophy & Public Affairs, , pp. 26-44.

RICHARDS, N.M., 2008. Intellectual privacy. Tex.L.Rev., 87, pp. 387.

RICKLESS, S.C., 2007. The right to privacy unveiled. San Diego Law Review, 44(4), pp. 773.

ROGERS, R.W., 1983. Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A Revised theory of protection motivation. In: J. CACIOPPO and R. PETTY, eds, Social psychophysiology. New York: Guilford Press, .

ROTENBERG, M. and AGRE, P.E., 1997. Technology and privacy: the new landscape. MIT Press.

SEKULOVSKI, J., 2016. The Panopticon factor: privacy and surveillance in the digital age. Departmental Bulletin Paper, 21(9), pp. 61-76.

SOLOVE, D.J., 2008. Understanding privacy.

SPEARS, J.L. and ERETE, S.L., 2014. “I have nothing to hide; thus nothing to fear”: defining a framework for examining the “Nothing to hide” persona.

STANTON, J.M., 2003. Information technology and privacy: A boundary management perspective. Socio-technical and human cognition elements of information systems. Igi Global, pp. 79-103.

STARK, L., 2016. The emotional context of information privacy. The Information Society, 32(1), pp. 14-27.

STRAHILEVITZ, L.J., 2005. A social networks theory of privacy. University of Chicago Law Reivew, 72(3),.

WARREN, S.D. and BRANDEIS, 1890. The right to privacy. Harvard law review, 4(5),.

WESTIN, A.F., 1967. Privacy and freedom. (1st ed.). edn. New York: Atheneum.

 

Types of friction that can affect the flow of personal data

I have been drawing on Luciano Floridi’s theory of ontological or informational friction, to see the ways in which the flow of data can be controlled.

When I came up with a list of nine friction types, I didn’t go through each of them giving specific page references in Floridi’s work where people can go back and see that they are mentioned, because there isn’t a nice handy list of friction types in bullet point or numbered list format.

In “The fourth revolution” (Floridi 2014) doesn’t give us a systematic list of friction types, but what he does do is to provide a few examples of what might affect the informational gap (which he describes as a function of the degree of accessibility of personal data where the larger the gap, the lower the degree of accessibility to personal data). Using these examples, one can identify the following six friction types (the specific references below aren’t exhaustive, but intended to be illustrative):

  1. Sensory (if the students have excellent hearing, p104; whether the students have perfect sight p104)
  2. Spatial (whether the students have their own rooms, p103)
  3. Temporal (refers to a science fiction scenario regarding time, and to a device called a chronoscope p104)
  4. Technological (Floridi says that ICT’s “unquestionably and influentially affect informational friction” p105)
  5. Regulatory (“solutions to the problem of protecting informational privacy can be not only self-regulatory and legislative but also technological” p139)
  6. Contextual (Floridi discusses a number of contextual issues eg social contexts (p132), and public contexts (p141), but the primary reason for identifying contextual frictions as one of the friction types is Nissenbaum’s framework of contextual integrity (Nissenbaum 2010)

In addition, a further three friction types were identified from other writings on privacy:

  1. Obscurity ((Hartzog, Selinger 2013), (Hartzog, Stutzman 2013), (Selinger, Hartzog 2014), (Bishop, Butler et al. 2013))
  2. Information behaviour (where people make a calculated risk assessment as to whether or not to share information (Dinev, Hart 2006), (Petronio, Altman 2002); and because of the way in which peoples’ behaviour changes when they know or when they think that they are being watched – the chilling effect – (Penney 2016), (PEN America 2013)).
  3. Training & awareness (the difference that digital literacy training, including safe online practices, can make; as well as privacy training for librarians (Noh 2014), (Kim, Noh 2014)

REFERENCES

BISHOP, M., BUTLER, E.R., BUTLER, K., GATES, C. and GREENSPAN, S., 2013. Forgive and forget: return to obscurity, Proceedings of the 2013 workshop on New security paradigms workshop 2013, ACM, pp. 1-10.

DINEV, T. and HART, P., 2006. An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-Commerce Transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), pp. 61-80.

FLORIDI, L., 2014. The 4th revolution: how the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

HARTZOG, W. and SELINGER, E., 2013. Obscurity: a better way to think about your data than “privacy”. The Atlantic, (January 17),.

HARTZOG, W. and STUTZMAN, F., 2013. The case for online obscurity. California Law Review, 101(1), pp. 1-49.

KIM, D. and NOH, Y., 2014. A study of public library patron’s understanding of library records and data privacy. International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology, 4(1), pp. 53-78.

NISSENBAUM, H.F., 2010. Privacy in context: technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Law.

NOH, Y., 2014. Digital library user privacy: changing librarian viewpoints through education. Library Hi Tech, 32(2),.

PEN AMERICA, 2013. Chilling effects: NSA surveillance drives US writers to self-censor. New York: PEN American Center, .

PENNEY, J., 2016. Chilling effects: Online surveillance and wikipedia use.

PETRONIO, S. and ALTMAN, I., 2002. Boundaries of privacy.

SELINGER, E. and HARTZOG, W., 2014. Obscurity and privacy.

 

 

How library privacy has changed thanks to digital technologies

Years ago, records of library usage would be paper-based typically using the Browne issue system. When a book was borrowed, a user would hand over one of their borrowing cards which would be placed inside a pocket along with the book’s own card. These would be organised in wooden trays by date of issue.

Anyone wishing to view a user’s borrowing history would be faced with a number of obstacles: the usage records were paper-based, they could only be accessed by visiting the library that held the records; they were only accessible to library staff; and as the records were organised by date of issue, only the most determined would be able to see what a specific user currently had out on loan as this would require them to manually check through the complete set of loan records; and once an item had been returned, the link between the user and the item borrowed was permanently broken.

Today, records of user activity extend far beyond details of the books they have borrowed; they are held in electronic form; and they aren’t all under the library’s sole control. As user activity records are now digital, there is always the potential for a hacker to breach the library’s information security.

Libraries rely on external vendors in order to provide their services. That includes integrated library systems, library discovery services, commercial services offering electronic newspapers, magazines, and ebooks. The library will have contracts in place with vendors, but these may be accessed using a third-party’s software (such as Adobe Digital Editions for ebooks) where there is no formal contract.

Libraries are simultaneously service-providers and consumers. The library doesn’t have complete control over all records of user activity, because of a complex ecosystem involving librarians, library users, library vendors, and a whole host of third parties such as cloud storage providers, analytics companies, social networks, and others. The vendors have their own terms and conditions, including their own privacy policies, and where a library service is delivered using a vendor’s product, librarians offload responsibility for user privacy, effectively expecting the user to use services at their own risk. It is unlikely that users are aware of the risks that they are taking in any meaningful sense. It may also be unclear to the user where the library’s responsibility ends and the vendor/third party’s responsibility begins.

Why did I choose those three pieces of legislation? (CoE Convention, DP Directive, GDPR)

I recently undertook a thematic discourse analysis using three pieces of legislation:

–          The Council of Europe convention for the protection of individuals with regard to the automatic processing of personal data, 1981

–          The Data Protection Directive 1995

–          The General Data Protection Regulation 2016

When you are undertaking research for a PhD, you have to continually document what you are doing, and be able to explain precisely why you did what you did; why you chose the methodologies that you did etc etc.

So a key question that has to be answered is: Why did I choose those particular pieces of legislation.

Well, first of all, I wanted to see how things have progressed over a period of time and I therefore opted to pick not one but three pieces of legislation; and the three I picked are spread over the period 1981 and 2016.

What I also wanted, was to look at international legislation, on the basis that international commitments would inform national legislation; and would provide a degree of harmonisation across multiple countries.

I also wanted to go back to the 1980’s, if possible, and so the Council of Europe Convention was an obvious candidate.  (Greenleaf 2017) describes the Convention as “the world’s only legally binding treaty on data privacy”. It was the first binding international instrument to set standards for the protection of individuals’ personal data.

Meanwhile, I chose two pieces of European Union legislation, because “The EU’s data protection laws have long been regarded as a gold standard all over the world”  (European Data Protection Supervisor 2017).

The two pieces of EU legislation that I chose were the Data Protection Directive 1995 and the GDPR 2016. Other potential contenders were the e-privacy directive 2002/58/EC and the data retention directive 2006/24/EC but I didn’t choose either of those, firstly because it would have been impractical to study more than three pieces of legislation; and because the main pieces of EU legislation governing data protection were the Data Protection Directive and the GDPR which will replace it in May 2018. The (European Data Protection Supervisor 2017) says that the GDPR is “one of its (the EU’s) greatest achievements in recent years”.

There were other international initiatives which I considered, but didn’t pick them because either they didn’t have the status of binding legislation, but were “guidelines” or a set of principles (for example the OECD guidelines on the protection of privacy and transborder flows of personal data); or they weren’t focussed exclusively on data protection or privacy – I am thinking here of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights adopted by the United Nations, the Council of Europe’s Convention on Human Rights, and the EU’s Fundamental Charter on Human Rights which was given binding legal effect in December 2009.

I didn’t choose to look exclusively at UK legislation for several reasons. I wanted to see how things had progressed over a number of years, and the Data Protection Bill which will implement the GDPR  hasn’t been finalised,  but is still progressing through the Westminster Parliament. Otherwise, the Data Protection Acts of 1984 and 1998 would have been potential candidates for the discourse analysis. But I also wanted to look at EU legislation because of the degree of harmonisation it enables across member states. That will be all the more the case with the GDPR given the way Regulations have direct effect, and therefore the level of harmonisation will be far greater than with the Directive.

Another question is why I didn’t look at US legislation.  The USA doesn’t have a general piece of data protection law. Rather, it has industry specific legislation. In a library context, each state does have legislation protecting the privacy of library users (apart from Kentucky and Hawaii which have Attorney Generals’ opinions) (American Library Association n.d.), but most of the legislation doesn’t take account of ebooks etc. One exception being California’s Reader Privacy Act 2011 which extends the protection of library records to ebooks. Another point is that federal laws such as the USA Freedoms Act take precedence over the laws of the individual states.

While the European Commission had been called upon by the European Parliament as early as 1976 to prepare a proposal for a directive harmonising data protection laws (Rudgard 2012), this wasn’t achieved until 1995; whereas the Council of Europe Convention was passed in 1981. (Rudgard 2012)

References

AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, n.d. State privacy laws regarding library records.

EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION SUPERVISOR, 2017. The history of the General Data Protection Regulation.

GREENLEAF, G., 2017. Data Protection Convention 108 Accession Eligibility: 80 Parties Now Possible. Privacy Laws & Business International Report, 148, pp. 12-16.

RUDGARD, S., 2012. Origins and historical context of data protection law. In: E. USTARAN, ed, European privacy law: law and practice for data protection professionals. IAPP, .

 

An analysis of the literature on privacy in higher education libraries

A literature survey looking specifically for academic articles on privacy in higher education identified 42 articles.  However, this was filtered down to 33 when on further examination we ruled out ones that may have been written by academics but weren’t about higher education libraries; or were about user’s physical security rather than about their data being held securely; or where they weren’t sufficiently focused on libraries; or on privacy.

The 33 articles were then analysed based on key characteristics. The overwhelming majority were written about the USA:

Australia 1
China 1
Ghana 1
India 1
Malaysia 1
UK 3
USA 25

A range of research methods were used by the authors, but the overwhelming majority cited questionnaires or surveys:

Case study 1
Content analysis 3
Direct observation 1
Feedback sessions 1
Interviews 2
Questionnaire/Survey 13
Secret shopper expedition 1

A third of the articles had been written in the most recent three years

1993 2
1995 1
1996 1
1997 1
2001 1
2002 1
2004 2
2005 3
2007 3
2008 1
2010 2
2011 1
2012 1
2013 2
2014 1
2015 4
2016 3
2017 3

The journal articles appeared in a wide range of titles, although the most common one was the Journal of Academic Librarianship

2016 International Conference on Applied System Innovation (ICASI), 2016 1
ACRL Tenth National Conference 1
Asia Pacific Conference Library & Information Education & Practice 1
Aslib Proceedings 1
College & Research Libraries 2
Community & Junior College Libraries 1
Information Technology and Libraries 1
Journal of Academic Librarianship 5
Journal of Access Services 1
Journal of Information Science 1
Libraries in the digital age (LIDA) proceedings 1
Library & Information Science Research 2
Library issues: briefings for faculty and administrators 1
Library Management 1
Library Philosophy and Practice 1
Library Quarterly 1
Library Review 1
New Library World 1
Online Information Review 1
Privacy in the 21st century: issues for public, school and academic libraries (BOOK SECTION) 1
Reference Quarterly 1
Serials Librarian 1
Technical Services Quarterly 1
Other

 

4

 

Bibliography

ADAMS, H.R., BOCHER, R.F., GORDON, C.A. and BARRY-KESSLER, E., 2005. Privacy in the 21st century: Issues for public, school, and academic libraries. Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

CHANDLER, A. and WALLACE, M., 2016. Using Piwik Instead of Google Analytics at the Cornell University Library. The Serials Librarian, 71(3-4), pp. 173-179.

COOMBS, K.A., 2005. Protecting user privacy in the age of digital libraries. Computers in Libraries, 25(6),.

DAVIES, E., 1996. Data protection management in university libraries in the UK. Journal of Information Science, 23(1), pp. 39-58.

DAVIES, J.E., 1997. Managing information about people: data protection issues for academic library managers. Library Management, 18(1), pp. 42-52.

DETTLAFF, C., 2007. Protecting user privacy in the library. Community & Junior College Libraries, 13(4), pp. 7-8.

DICKSON, A. and HOLLEY, R.P., 2010. Social networking in academic libraries: the possibilities and the concerns. New Library World, 111(11/12), pp. 468-479.

ELLERN, G.(.D., HITCH, R. and STOFFAN, M.A., 2015. User Authentication in the Public Area of Academic Libraries in North Carolina. Information Technology and Libraries (Online), 34(2), pp. 103-132.

FIFAREK, A., 2002. Technology and privacy in the academic library. Online Information Review, 26(6), pp. 366-374.

FISTER, B., 2015. Big data or big brother? data, ethics, and academic libraries. Library Issues: Briefings for Faculty and Administrators, 35(4),.

FOUTY, K.G., 1993. Online patron records and privacy: Service vs. security. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 19(5), pp. 289-293.

GAO, C., 2016. A study on strategies to improve the protection of personal information for university libraries users, Applied System Innovation (ICASI), 2016 International Conference on 2016, IEEE, pp. 1-3.

GREENLAND, K., 2013. Negotiating self-presentation, identity, ethics, readership and privacy in the LIS blogosphaere: a review of the literature. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 44(4),.

HESS, A.N., LAPORTE-FIORI, R. and ENGWALL, K., 2015. Preserving patron privacy in the 21st century academic library. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(1), pp. 105-114.

JOHNS, S. and LAWSON, K., 2005. University undergraduate students and library-related privacy issues. Library & Information Science Research, 27(4), pp. 485-495.

JONES, K.M. and SALO, D., 2017. Learning Analytics and the Academic Library: Professional Ethics Commitments at a Crossroads. College & Research Libraries, , pp. crl17-1038.

MAGI, T.J., 2010. A content analysis of library vendor privacy policies: Do they meet our standards? College & Research Libraries, 71(3), pp. 254-272.

MAGI, T.J., 2007. The gap between theory and practice: a study of the prevalence and strength of patron confidentiality policies in public and academic libraries. Library & Information Research, 29, pp. 455-470.

MATHSON, S. and HANCKS, J., 2008. Privacy Please? A comparison between self-checkout and book checkout desk circulation rates for LGBT and other books. Journal of Access Services, 4(3-4), pp. 27-37.

NOLAN, C.W., 1993. The confidentiality of interlibrary loan records. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 19(2), pp. 81-86.

OLTMANN, S.M., 2017. Intellectual Freedom in Academic Libraries: Surveying Deans about Its Significance. College & Research Libraries, 78(6), pp. 741.

OSAE OTOPAH, F. and DADZIE, P., 2013. Personal information management practices of students and its implications for library services, Aslib Proceedings 2013, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 143-160.

RONI, N.A.M., NAPIAH, M.K.M. and HASSAN, B., 2011. Impact of ICT on privacy and personal data protection in two Malaysian academic libraries. Asia Pacific Conference Library & Information Education & Practice, .

RUBEL, A., 2014. Libraries, electronic resources, and privacy: the case for positive intellectual freedom. Library Quarterly, 84(2), pp. 183-208.

RUBEL, A., 2012. A framework for analyzing electronic resources, privacy and intellectual freedom.

RUBEL, A. and ZHANG, M., 2015. Four facets of privacy and intellectual freedom in licensing contracts for electronic journals. College & Research Libraries, , pp. 30-30 pages.

SHULER, J., 2004. Privacy and academic libraries: widening the frame of discussion. Journal of Academic Librarianship, .

SUTLIEFF, L. and CHELIN, J., 2010. `An absolute prerequisite’: The importance of user privacy and trust in maintaining academic freedom at the library. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 42(3), pp. 163-177.

SUTTON, L., 2001. Advocacy for intellectual freedom in an academic library. ACRL Tenth National Conference, (15-18),.

VOELLER, S., 2007. Privacy Policy Assessment for the Livingston Lord Library at Minnesota State University Moorhead.

WILKES, A.W. and GRANT, S.M., 1995. Confidentiality policies and procedures of the reference departments in Texas academic libraries. RQ, 34(4), pp. 473-485.

YUVARAJ, M., 2016. Perception of cloud computing in developing countries. Library Review, 65(1/2), pp. 33-51.

ZAUGG, H., MCKEEN, Q., HILL, B. and BLACK, B., 2017. Conducting and using an academic library data inventory. Technical services quarterly, 34(1), pp. 1-12.

 

 

Academic articles on library privacy in higher education

Bibliography

ADAMS, H.R., 2005. Privacy in the 21st century: issues for public, school, and academic libraries. Libraries Unlimited.

AMOAH, G.B., 2016. Assessment Of Library User Security In Sam Jonah Library, University Of Cape Coast.

BOWERS, S.L., 2006. Privacy and Library Records. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(4), pp. 377-383.

BOWRON, C.R. and WEBER, J.E., 2017. Implementing the READ Scale at the Austin Peay State University Library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(6), pp. 518-525.

CARLSON, S., 2004. To use that library computer, please identify yourself. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(42),.

CHANDLER, A. and WALLACE, M., 2016. Using Piwik Instead of Google Analytics at the Cornell University Library. The Serials Librarian, 71(3-4), pp. 173-179.

COOMBS, K.A., 2004. Walking a tightrope: Academic libraries and privacy. The Journal of academic librarianship, 30(6), pp. 493-498.

DAVIES, E., 1997. Data protection management in university libraries in the UK. Journal of Information Science, 23(1), pp. 39-58.

DETTLAFF, C., 2007. Protecting user privacy in the library. Community & Junior College Libraries, 13(4), pp. 7-8.

ELLERN, G.(.D., HITCH, R. and STOFFAN, M.A., 2015. User Authentication in the Public Area of Academic Libraries in North Carolina. Information Technology and Libraries (Online), 34(2), pp. 103-132.

ERIC DAVIES, J., 1997. Managing information about people: data protection issues for academic library managers. Library Management, 18(1), pp. 42-52.

FIFAREK, A., 2002. Technology and privacy in the academic library. Online Information Review, 26(6), pp. 366-374.

FISTER, B., 2015. Big data or big brother? data, ethics, and academic libraries. Library Issues: Briefings for Faculty and Administrators, 35(4),.

FOUTY, K.G., 1993. Online patron records and privacy: Service vs. security. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 19(5), pp. 289-293.

FYFE, T.M. and PAYNE, G.W., 2009. Undergraduate medical education: Redefining the role of the librarian, Positioning the Profession: the Tenth International Congress on Medical Librarianship 2009, pp. 1-9.

GREENLAND, K., 2013. Negotiating self-presentation, identity, ethics, readership and privacy in the LIS blogosphaere: a review of the literature. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 44(4),.

HASMAN, L., 2012. Librarian-facilitated problem-based learning course in a school of dental medicine. Medical reference services quarterly, 31(3), pp. 336-341.

HESS, A.N., LAPORTE-FIORI, R. and ENGWALL, K., 2015. Preserving patron privacy in the 21st century academic library. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(1), pp. 105-114.

IFENTHALER, D. and TRACEY, M.W., 2016. Exploring the relationship of ethics and privacy in learning analytics and design: implications for the field of educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(5), pp. 877-880.

JASCHIK, S., 1993. Putting student theses in libraries violates privacy law. Chronicle of Higher Education, 40(2), pp. pA32-pA32.

JOHNS, S. and LAWSON, K., 2005. University undergraduate students and library-related privacy issues. Library & Information Science Research, 27(4), pp. 485-495.

JONES, K.M. and SALO, D., 2017. Learning Analytics and the Academic Library: Professional Ethics Commitments at a Crossroads. College & Research Libraries, , pp. crl17-1038.

MAGI, T.J., 2010. A content analysis of library vendor privacy policies: Do they meet our standards? College & Research Libraries, 71(3), pp. 254-272.

MAGI, T.J., 2007. The gap between theory and practice: a study of the prevalence and strength of patron confidentiality policies in public and academic libraries. Library & Information Research, 29, pp. 455-470.

MATHSON, S. and HANCKS, J., 2008. Privacy Please? A comparison between self-checkout and book checkout desk circulation rates for LGBT and other books. Journal of Access Services, 4(3-4), pp. 27-37.

NOLAN, C.W., 1993. The confidentiality of interlibrary loan records. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 19(2), pp. 81-86.

OLTMANN, S.M., 2017. Intellectual freedom in academic libraries: surveying deans about its significance.

PROIA, A.A., 2013. A new approach to digital reader privacy; state regulations and their protection of digital book data. Indiana Law Journal, 88(4),.

RAFIQUE, G.M., 2017. Personal Information Sharing Behavior of University Students via Online Social Networks. Library Philosophy & Practice, , pp. 1-24.

RONI, N.A.M., NAPIAH, M.K.M. and HASSAN, B., 2011. Impact of ICT on privacy and personal data protection in two Malaysian academic libraries. Asia Pacific Conference Library & Information Education & Practice, .

RUBEL, A., 2014. Libraries, electronic resources, and privacy: the case for positive intellectual freedom. Library Quarterly, 84(2), pp. 183-208.

RUBEL, A., 2012. A framework for analyzing electronic resources, privacy and intellectual freedom.

RUBEL, A. and ZHANG, M., 2015. Four facets of privacy and intellectual freedom in licensing contracts for electronic journals. College & Research Libraries, , pp. 30-30 pages.

SHULER, J., 2004. Privacy and academic libraries: widening the frame of discussion. Journal of Academic Librarianship, .

SUTLIEFF, L. and CHELIN, J., 2010. `An absolute prerequisite’: The importance of user privacy and trust in maintaining academic freedom at the library. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 42(3), pp. 163-177.

SUTTON, L., 2001. Advocacy for intellectual freedom in an academic library. ACRL Tenth National Conference, (15-18),.

ZAUGG, H., MCKEEN, Q., HILL, B. and BLACK, B., 2017. Conducting and using an academic library data inventory. Technical services quarterly, 34(1), pp. 1-12.