Librarians as Advocates for Social Media Privacy

Librarians must continue their traditional roles as privacy rights activists and intellectual freedom upholders into the digital age, and across electronic information sources, including social media fora. Social media is quickly becoming a major source of information and center for information seeking, and librarians have an opportunity to promote and help shape social media policies that protect users’ privacy and assure that users can seek information without inhibition. One way librarians can be involved in the promotion of online privacy is by joining the social media user rights movement and advocating terms of use agreements that protect information seekers that follow the "Privacy by Design" model created by Ann Cavoukian, Ph.D.

Social Media, Privacy, and the Academic Classroom

We live in a world full of social media and portable technology that allows for the effortless access to, and sharing of, information. While this constant connection can be viewed as a benefit by some, there have been recent, sometimes embarrassing, instances throughout the world that show just how quickly any expectation of privacy can be destroyed. From pictures of poorly dressed shoppers at a grocery store to customers recording interactions with their servers at restaurants, the internet is full of media (all with the potential to go viral) created and posted without consent of all parties captured. This risk to privacy is not just limited to retail and restaurants, as being in any situation amongst people puts you at risk, including being in an academic classroom. Anyone providing in-class instruction, be they professor or librarian, can be at risk for this type of violation of privacy. In addition, the students in the class are also at risk for being unwittingly captured by their classmates. To combat this, colleges and universities are providing recommendations to faculty regarding this issue, such as including suggested syllabus statements about classroom recording by students. In some instances, colleges and universities have instituted formal policies with strict penalties for violators. An overview of current privacy law as it relates to an academic setting is discussed as well as recent, newsworthy instances of student recording in the classroom and the resulting controversies. Additionally, there is a discussion highlighting various recommendations and formal policies that have been issued and adopted by colleges and universities around the country. Finally, advice is offered about what librarians can do to educate students, faculty, and staff about the privacy rights of others and the potential harm that could come from posting to social media and the open web images and video of others without their consent.

Privacy Advocacy in Libraries in the Age of Mass Surveillance

Alison Macrina is the founder and director of the Library Freedom Project, an initiative that aims to make real the promise of intellectual freedom in libraries. The Library Freedom Project trains librarians on the state of global surveillance, privacy rights, and privacy-protecting technology, so that librarians may in turn teach their communities about safeguarding privacy. In 2015, Alison was named one of Library Journal‘s Movers and Shakers. Read more about the Library Freedom Project at libraryfreedomproject.org.

Protecting Your Search Privacy: A Lesson Plan

Each year search engines like Google, Bing and Yahoo, complete trillions of search queries online. Students are especially dependent on these search tools because of their popularity, convenience and accessibility. However, what students are unaware of, by choice or naiveté is the amount of personal information that is collected during each search session, how that data is used and who is interested in their online behavior profile. Privacy policies are frequently updated in favor of the search companies but are lengthy and often are perused briefly or ignored entirely with little thought about how personal web habits are being exploited for analytics and marketing. As an Information Literacy instructor, and a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, I believe in the importance of educating college students and web users in general that they have a right to privacy online. Class discussions on the topic of web privacy have yielded an interesting perspective on internet search usage. Students are unaware of how their online behavior is recorded and have consistently expressed their hesitancy to use tools that disguise or delete their IP address because of the stigma that it may imply they have something to hide or are engaging in illegal activity. Additionally, students fear they will have to surrender the convenience of uber connectivity in their applications to maintain their privacy. The purpose of this lightning presentation is to provide educators with a lesson plan highlighting and simplifying the privacy terms for the three major search engines, Google, Bing and Yahoo. This presentation focuses on what data these search engines collect about users, how that data is used and alternative search solutions, like DuckDuckGo, for increased privacy. Students will directly benefit from this lesson because informed internet users can protect their data, feel safer online and become more effective web searchers.

Library Privacy Policies in 2015: Strategies for Renewed Relevance

In recent decades, library associations have advocated for the adoption of privacy and confidentiality policies as practical support to the Library Code of Ethics with a threefold purpose to (1) define and uphold privacy practices within the library, (2) convey privacy practices to patrons and, (3) protect against potential liability and public relations problems. The adoption of such policies has been instrumental in providing libraries with effective responses to surveillance initiatives such as warrantless requests and the USA PATRIOT ACT. Nevertheless, as reflected in recent news stories, the rapid emergence of data brokerage relationships and technologies and the increasing need for libraries to utilize third party vendor services have increased opportunities for data surveillers to access patrons’ personal information and reading habits, which are funneled and made available through multiple online library service platforms. Additionally, the advice that libraries should “contract for the same level of privacy reflected in their privacy policies” is no longer realistic given that the existence of multiple vendor contracts negotiated at arms length is likely to produce varying privacy terms and even varying definitions of what constitutes personal information (PII). These conditions sharply threaten the effectiveness and relevance of library privacy policies and privacy initiatives in that such policies increasingly offer false comfort by failing to reflect privacy weaknesses in the data sharing landscape and vendor contracts when library-vendor contracts fail to keep up with vendor data sharing capabilities. While some argue that library privacy ethics are antiquated and rendered obscure in the current online sharing economy PEW studies point to pronounced public discomfort with increasing privacy erosion. At the same time, new directions in FTC enforcement raise the possibility that public institutions’ privacy policies may serve as swords to unfair or deceptive commercial trade practices – offering the potential of renewed relevance for library privacy and confidentiality policies. This dual coin of public concern and the potential for enhanced FTC enforcement suggests that when crafting privacy polices libraries must now walk the knife’s edge by offering patrons both realistic notice about the limitations of protections the library can ensure while at the same time publicly holding vendors accountable to library privacy ethics and expectations. Potential solutions for how to walk this edge are developed and offered as a subject for further discussion to assist the modification of model policies for both public and academic libraries alike.

Obfuscation and Strict Online Anonymity

I consider the case for genuinely anonymous web searching. Big data seems to have it in for privacy. The story is well known, particularly since the dawn of the web. Vastly more personal information, monumental and quotidian, is gathered than in the pre-digital days. Once gathered it can be aggregated and analyzed to produce rich portraits, which in turn permit unnerving prediction of our future behavior. The new information can then be shared widely, limiting prospects and threatening autonomy. How should we respond? Following Nissenbaum (2011) and Brunton and Nissenbaum (2011 and 2013), I will argue that the proposed solutions—consent, anonymity as conventionally practiced, corporate best practices, and law—fail to protect us against routine surveillance of our online behavior. Brunton and Nissenbaum rightly maintain that, given the power imbalance between data holders and data subjects, obfuscation of one’s online activities is justified. Obfuscation works by generating “misleading, false, or ambiguous data with the intention of confusing an adversary or simply adding to the time or cost of separating good data from bad,” thus decreasing the value of the data collected (Brunton and Nissenbaum, 2011). The phenomenon is as old as the hills. Natural selection evidently blundered upon the tactic long ago. Take a savory butterfly whose markings mimic those of a toxic cousin. From the point of view of a would-be predator the data conveyed by the pattern is ambiguous. Is the bug lunch or potential last meal? In the light of the steep costs of a mistake, the savvy predator goes hungry. Online obfuscation works similarly, attempting for instance to disguise the surfer’s identity (Tor) or the nature of her queries (Howe and Nissenbaum 2009). Yet online obfuscation comes with significant social costs. First, it implies free riding. If I’ve installed an effective obfuscating program, I’m enjoying the benefits of an apparently free internet without paying the costs of surveillance, which are shifted entirely onto non-obfuscators. Second, it permits sketchy actors, from child pornographers to fraudsters, to operate with near impunity. Third, online merchants could plausibly claim that, when we shop online, surveillance is the price we pay for convenience. If we don’t like it, we should take our business to the local brick-and-mortar and pay with cash. Brunton and Nissenbaum have not fully addressed the last two costs. Nevertheless, I think the strict defender of online anonymity can meet these objections. Regarding the third, the future doesn’t bode well for offline shopping. Consider music and books. Intrepid shoppers can still find most of what they want in a book or record store. Soon, though, this will probably not be the case. And then there are those who, for perfectly good reasons, are sensitive about doing some of their shopping in person, perhaps because of their weight or sexual tastes. I argue that consumers should not have to pay the price of surveillance every time they want to buy that catchy new hit, that New York Times bestseller, or a sex toy.