- Groups call for privacy standards used by libraries
- Public Index debuts, offers interactive info on settlement
- More defenses of Google emerge
(For a set of links, go to LibraryJournal.com/GoogleBookSearchSettlement.)
Several organizations concerned with civil liberties and privacy have urged Google to look toward the example set by libraries and make a greater upfront commitment to reader privacy, even as a federal court settlement is pending with authors and publishers regarding the Google Book Search (GBS) project.
The ACLU of Northern California, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Samuelson Clinic at the University of California Berkeley Law School have sent a letter urging Google to promise that “it will protect reader records by responding only to properly-issued warrants,” allow anonymous browsing, allow readers to delete their records, and ensure that readers know what information is being collected and maintained about them.
Dan Clancy, the point man for Google Books, responded in a blog post, noting, as he has told library groups raising the same concern, that the settlement agreement hasn't yet been approved by the court:
“While we know that our eventual product will build in privacy protections -- like always giving users clear information about privacy, and choices about what if any data they share when they use our services -- we don't yet know exactly how this all will work. We do know that whatever we ultimately build will protect readers' privacy rights, upholding the standards set long ago by booksellers and by the libraries whose collections are being opened to the public through this settlement.”
More privacy concerns
The Center for Democracy and Technology also released an analysis of the privacy issues, urging Google to “issue a set of privacy commitments before the settlement’s approval, explaining both its general approach for safeguarding reader privacy and its process for fleshing out full details as GBS moves forward,” and agreeing to have these commitments subject to ongoing court supervision
CDT said that Google’s recently-issued Privacy FAQ is a good start, but “represents the beginning, not the end, of discussions of reader privacy.”
CDT said Google should clearly and prominently disclose numerous things, such as what information it collects about individuals’ use of GBS (search terms, book selections, etc.), how long each type of data is retained; and how reader data is safeguarded. “In light of the special sensitivity of readership information and library browsing, a link to this notice should be displayed more prominently than the usual privacy notice associated with other Google services,” CDT said.
“[I]t is almost certain that at some point in the not-too-distant future a governmental entity or private litigant will seek disclosure from Google of information that could be used to identify a user or to associate a user with access to particular books,” CDT said, pointing out that neither party to settlement “was negotiating on behalf of the reading public.”
Public Index debuts
The Public Index, a web site aiming to study and discuss the Google Book Search Settlement, has finally debuted, the work of New York Law School (NYLS) professor James Grimmelmann and colleagues. The centerpiece of the site is an interactive version of the proposed settlement, which allows annotations.
The Public Index also includes a version of the NYLS amicus brief to the court as an openly editable wiki, allowing users to mark it up with their corrections, criticisms, and suggestions before the brief is filed in September.
Two defenses of Google
Meanwhile, in a blog post headlined The Earth is Not Flat: The Public Interest and the Google Book Search Settlement: A Reply to Grimmelman, David Balto, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress praises the settlement, writing, “What Google has achieved the in truly remarkable, and potentially transforms the availability of vast amounts of knowledge - much akin to the development of search. Google has created a universally accessible, searchable, digital library of unprecedented dimensions.”
Balto continued: "Moreover, the settlement will serve as an equalizing force across socioeconomic, geographic and linguistic barriers. Scholars and historians at the smallest schools in remote corners of this country will obtain the same access to knowledge as those at large well funded universities in our biggest cities. Citizens in poor communities will likewise have similar access to knowledge as those in affluent communities. And language barriers will be diminished under the settlement as Google's translation technology enables digital works in one language to be instantly translated into others.”
While Balto argues that the settlement is a good deal for consumers, he does not specifically address the issue raised by many in the library community: the impact of monopoly pricing on library subscriptions.
Similarly, in the San Jose Mercury-News, Jonathan Hillel, a policy fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, criticized the inquiries made by the Justice Department into antitrust implications. “The court must consider whether the rights of orphan work authors will be fairly represented under the settlement,” Hillel wrote. “Consumer benefit, not pressure from the Justice Department, should guide the court's decision.
“Google is creating a market for orphan works and is making them available for widespread access. Antitrust interference will only distort market incentives and hinder the growth of this nascent sector,” he wrote, again omitting the issue of library subscriptions.
The Google game
Meanwhile, Google has launched the 10 Days in Google Books game, inviting entrants to write a 50-word entry on the topic of books. Each day, the top three submissions will win Sony Readers, while the first 20,000 people to play the game will get Google Books laptop stickers.
Commenting on PaidContent.org, Tameka Kee questioned why Google’s giving away a Sony Reader rather than the more popular Amazon Kindle?
Also see Publishers Weekly's recap of the recent NYPL panel, "Expanding Access to Books: Implications of the Google Books Settlement Agreement”
