Last Post

Protecting User Privacy in the Age of Digital Libraries. Computers in Libraries v. 25 no. 6 (June 2005)

This is article is an interesting one because I have read other works by Coombs, and this one seems the most complete. User privacy is a very difficult issue because of the fast paced change in the technological world. Software at libraries are usually developed by vendors, and privacy issues are hard to fix quickly and efficiently. Patron records are also at risk at being seen by governmental authorities who believe that they have the right to see any patron information. Librarians must balance between professional ethics for keeping patrons' privacy, and government mandates such as the Patriot Act. The ILS and the servers at a library must be scrubbed periodically in order for information to be securely gotten rid of.

I think that Coombs article brings a lot of patron privacy issues to the forefront, especially in public libraries. Patrons should be able to expect that their records will not be shared with anyone other than the specific people they authorize to view that information. Librarians need to be vigilant in maintaining that security, which is very often difficult. Obviously, librarians cannot control everything, especially all of the aspects of technology used by the library. Yet, they can remain constant in their quest to maintain privacy.



Siva Vaidhyanathan (2005) The Googlization of Everything and the Future of Copyright
http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol40/Issue3/DavisVol40No3_Vaidhyanathan.pdf

In this article, the author goes on a tirade against Google's digitization projects. Google wants to scan and create digital copies of many books that are still under copyright protection, as well as those that are not. The author argues that this project is counterproductive because they will monopolize the project and not have as high quality digitized materials than if other more qualified people did it. Authors and creators should have the complete rights to their works and those rights should not be infringed upon. Google risks changing the very essence and spirit of copyright, which is guaranteed to every author who obtains a copyright under the law.

I think that while projects like the Gutenberg Project are admirable in trying to make information available to the people, Google's motives appear to be more sinister. Publishers are now digitizing many works themselves, which is legal under the copyright agreement they have when authors sign a contract. Google should not be able to just take and digitize whatever they want. They should have to obey the law just like everyone else.

Question: Google is obviously more visible as a copyright infringer, but should individuals be treated the same way when violating copyright laws?