[WEB4LIB] Re: [Fwd: Google, libraries, and privacy]

[Michael McCulley]

Good points, Karen, but I will disagree on the last one, mostly.. it's not a
traditional library, but in 21st Century terms, it certainly is one of the
largest "libraries" publicly-available in the world. I don't know the last
library you were in, but I haven't been in one yet with 8 billion
"materials." But, I don't want to overstate the matter.

My point would be, yes, Google has become an extension of library in some
senses of the word, and we need to (professionally) engage with Google at
some high-level, ongoing projects to help build something for libraries, as
well as Google. I don't see those objectives at odds, at least at face
value. The devil would be in the details, but I prefer that path for our
profession and the libraries and communities we serve, to do nothing
positive about this endeavor.

Best, and holiday wishes,
Michael

-- 
P. Michael McCulley aka DrWeb
mailto:drweb at san.rr.com
San Diego, CA 
http://drweb.typepad.com/

Quote of the Moment:
 Cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny.
Monday, December 20, 2004 6:09:01 PM 
 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: web4lib at webjunction.org 
>[mailto:web4lib at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
>Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 3:45 PM
>To: Multiple recipients of list
>Subject: [WEB4LIB] Re: [Fwd: Google, libraries, and privacy]
>
>On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 11:06, Joseph Murphy wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 2004, at 3:13 PM, Thomas Dowling wrote:
>> >>> ...Google has used a cookie with a unique ID in it that
>> >>> expires in 2038...
>> >
>> > Not on my machine they don't.
>> 
>> Thanks, Tom. You've helped me to finally figure out how to 
>explain, in 
>> good LIS terms, why cookies just don't concern me as a privacy issue.
>> 
>
>I don't think that the issue here is about cookies, although the points
>made on that topic are interesting. Let me expound on what I see as the
>real problem. It's really no different to the privacy issue that comes
>up with every vendor that libraries work with. In our contracts for
>licensed materials, we always impose certain rules relating to user
>privacy. This isn't just some kind of nutty thing that libraries do --
>depending on what state your live in, your state law requires that the
>confidentiality of library use be protected to some extent. I feel
>strongly that any service that we promote in the library 
>should meet the
>privacy standard that the law requires. If it doesn't, we should warn
>users.
>
>Admittedly, when users search on Google they are not "using the
>library." But the privacy issue is one that we should consider 
>before we
>turn searching for library materials over to a non-library entity. Some
>of the articles I saw and some of the quotes had an element of: "well,
>libraries can't afford to do this, so it's great that Google will do it
>for us." Google isn't doing it FOR Libraries, Google is doing it for
>Google. Which is fine as long as we realize that, and realize 
>that it is
>not a substitute for library service. Not only does it not follow some
>important standards (give me an author search, for pity's 
>sake!) it will
>not fulfill our professional and legal obligations to our users. So
>enjoy it for what it is (Google finding another way to make 
>money off of
>content) but let's not pretend like it's an extension of the library.
>-- 
>-------------------------------------
>Karen Coyle
>Digital Library Specialist
>http://www.kcoyle.net
>Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913
>--------------------------------------