|
 | In First-Ever Rankings, London-Based Privacy Advocates Slam Google
Google faces more privacy concerns, as Privacy International, (PI) a London-based institute that issued an "interim" report containing its first-ever privacy rankings for the world's most popular Internet service providers, put the search behemoth at the very bottom. PI rated 23 sites in its report, ominously titled A Race to the Bottom: Privacy Ranking of Internet Service Companies. The report grades each firm within six color-codes based on their policies and procedures in protecting consumer privacy. The codes range from green (privacy-friendly and privacy enhancing) to black, (hostile to privacy). No firm earned a green rating; one earned a black rating: Google.
"We are aware that the decision to place Google at the bottom of the ranking is likely to be controversial," the study states, "but throughout our research we have found numerous deficiencies and hostilities in Google's approach to privacy that go well beyond those of other organizations." The view that Google "opens up information through a range of attractive and advanced tools", argues PI, "does not exempt the company from demonstrating responsible leadership in privacy."
Indeed, far from demonstrating leadership, "Google has created the most onerous privacy environment on the Internet," according to PI, noting that Google, for example, keeps users web histories for up to two years. Google maintains, however, that users can select the level of privacy they choose and can agree to have their histories kept in return for enhanced service, or can opt-out. PI also claimed this week that Google responded to the rankings with a "smear campaign." In an open letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt, PI's director Simon Davies said that two European journalists have reported that "Google representatives contacted them with the claim that Privacy International has a conflict of interest regarding Microsoft." Microsoft was awarded an "orange" rating, two bands better than Google.
Privacy International (PI) was formed in 1990 as "a watchdog on surveillance and privacy invasions by governments and corporations." This is its first major report on Internet Service Providers. While no other firm earned a black rating, Google has a lot of company in the lower half of the rankings, suggesting a troubling future for individual privacy on the web. Seven firms earned a red rating (substantial threat to privacy) and four firms earned an orange rating (serious lapses in privacy). Privacy International yesterday reached out to ISPs, inviting representatives to a meeting on July 23 in San Francisco to discuss the study results and how to improve their privacy policies.
|
|
DLF's Brantley: Will Librarians Be Lousy Publishers?
Libraries and university presses face many common challenges, notes Peter Brantley, executive director of the Digital Library Federation, not the least of which appears to be lack of understanding by librarians, energized by technological developments, of what publishing is really about. "The more I think about these central aspects of publishing, the social aspects of publishing, I am not at all convinced that librarians, despite their technical whiz with text/xml, have got even a basic clue about what these things mean," Brantley writes in a typically thoughtful and provocative post on his personal blog. "In short, I am coming to the conclusion that librarians are likely to be lousy publishers."
At issue, Brantley notes, is that librarians' talk in recent years of "reinventing scholarly communication does almost nothing to actually help publishers publish." While Brantley remains bullish on the "possibilities for building new forms of communication," he takes librarians to task for failing to grasp the complexities of good publishing. "The most important thing to me about this recent spate of conversations is that libraries so utterly and completely miss what it means to publish what publishers have been publishing for the past several hundred years, longer form articles and manuscripts," he writes. "There is a lot of work in finding, attracting, grooming talent; encouraging the actual writing; producing coherent drafts; editing; presentation; administration; rights; marketing; and distribution."
Libraries and presses must bring together their values "in a way that respects the best of what has been, and what could be," Brantley suggests. "If either of these sets of institutions are to participate in a solution—libraries and presses—it will require serious, long-term, fundamental re-invention of their essence."
Brantley's post kicked off a lively discussion among commenters. "It is hyperbole to suggest that libraries imagine that they are ready to replace university presses today," notes one commenter. "They are, appropriately, quite ready to talk about what they can do to advance scholarly communication and to begin exploring what new roles it may be appropriate for them to take." Another commenter writes that while "librarians in general may not be very good publishers...publishers in general may not be very good publishers either," with many spending more effort today on locking up their content than expanding access. "It's hardly surprising that many of us who are committed to an environment that fosters easy exchange of academic work believe that we are ill-served by such behavior, and thus look to the set of institutions—libraries—that at least seem to have the right sense of mission, even if they haven't yet developed all of the requisite skills."
|
| With Scan Plan, Emory University Takes Control
With Google is approaching its scan plan like the proverbial hare, racing to scan as many books as it can, Emory this week announced that it is playing the tortoise, approaching its collections with more deliberation. Emory University officials say that much of the plan remains under discussion, but that doing its own scanning answers one major question: control. "The key point for me is that this option allows us to retain much more control over digitizing our pre-1923 collection and reserving the right to freely make that digital content available to scholars and the public," Martin Halbert, director for digital programs and systems, told the LJ Academic Newswire. "The degree to which Google would have controlled the digitized versions of items in our collection was unacceptable, speaking as stewards of the intellectual assets of the library."
With 25 libraries now partnering with Google, Emory's decision represents a stand of sorts. As important as it is to ensure that public domain materials are scanned and made available, a point on which Emory and Google agree, the choice of works and how those works can be used is just as crucial. Halbert said a committee was now deciding how to best approach the scanning of public domain items, guided by scholarship, not commerce. "The committee has not yet determined all the criteria to be used in this prioritization," Halbert noted, "but unlike a commercial publisher seeking to maximize sales, our most important criteria will likely center on scholarly value and rarity of items. Our aim here is absolutely not to make a profit, but rather to do this in service to the scholarly endeavor."
All items digitized with the Kirtas scanner, he added, will be public domain, pre-1923 publications. While the library is exploring the possibility of publishing more original works, that is a separate program. "Any contemporary works offered for sale through would be items for which Emory holds the copyright," Halbert explained. "This is a critical point which we wish to emphasize: we will be very strictly abiding by established copyright laws."
|
| Still No Announcement but Bush Library Committee Seeks Architects
There's still no official announcement, but reports this week suggest that several architectural firms have been contacted about designing the George W. Bush Presidential Library at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, yet another sign that the library is a done deal. The move was undertaken by Bush's library selection committee, headed by Don Evans. The Dallas Morning News obtained a copy of an 11-page solicitation, which noted the library will "be adjacent to the SMU campus," yet Evans told reporters no final decision has been made. "The committee wanted to look at architectural options as part of the final decision-making," said a spokesperson for Evans. The article noted that "a short list" of firms will be interviewed the week of July 30 in Washington, D.C. Baylor University (Waco) is the only remaining competitor.
|
| Update: eBrary Releases Ebook Survey
In last Tuesday's LJAN, we reported on a survey of libraries done by ebook vendor eBrary that found that, while ebooks have become more popular, growth is being slowed by several issues, including complicated interfaces, business models, and a general lack of awareness among students and faculty. The full results of that survey are now publicly available. Anyone interested in receiving a copy can sign up here or can stop the eBrary booth (#1000) at the 2007 American Library Association Annual Conference exhibit, June 23-26 in Washington DC.
|
Library Journal Academic Newswire
Contributing Editor: Andrew R. Albanese
Phone: 646-746-6852 E-mail: aalbanese@reedbusiness.com
Editor: Francine Fialkoff
Phone: 646-746-6807 E-mail: fialkoff@reedbusiness.com
News Editor: Norman Oder
Phone: 646-746-6829 E-mail: noder@reedbusiness.com
TO UNSUBSCRIBE
To unsubscribe send an e-mail to Unsub_Academic_Newswire@email.libraryjournal.com
TO SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to Academic Newswire or our other newsletters
Subscribe to Library Journal magazine
ARCHIVE
Read past issues
PRINT
You must change your print settings from portrait to landscape to print this page.
VIEW OUR PRIVACY POLICY
Click here
ADVERTISING
Contact your LJ Sales rep for advertising information
QUESTIONS?
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact our
Online Support Team
Reed Business Information
2000 Clearwater Drive, Oak Brook, IL 60523
MediaSupport@reedbusiness.com?Subject=LJ-"AN"
© 2007 Library Journal. All rights reserved.
"Library Journal" is a registered trademark. "Library Journal Academic Newswire" is a trademark.
|
