FREEDOM OF INFO

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION VS FREEDOM FROM HARM

The Standing Committee on Freedom of Information talks anonymity, privacy and freedom of expression vs freedom from harm.

This IFLA FAIFE blog /a-rightto-anonymity/ discusses recent reforms in Austria set to remove the possibility to leave anonymous comments on the internet because of concern about the rise of ‘hate speech,’ and the sense that anonymity can give people the possibility to spread discriminatory views without consequences. Civil liberties groups point out that it is often the usual victims of hate speech – marginalised groups, those in vulnerable positions who have benefited most from the opportunity to use the Internet without giving up their identities.

The blog asks what this means for libraries and reminds us of the IFLA statement: ‘Library users shall have the right to personal privacy and anonymity. Librarians and other library staff shall not disclose the identity of users or the materials they use to a third party.’ Many libraries do not require identification for someone to be able to enter a building and use resources on site (although policies do vary when it comes to using library computers) but in order to borrow books, a library card is necessary, implying a loss of anonymity. The IFLA statement accepts that libraries will hold personal information which could but shouldn’t (at least not without consent) be shared with third parties.

Which brings us to a very local and current issue.

LIBRARIES CAN CHANGE YOUR LIFE – BUT ONLY IF YOU HAVE A LINKEDIN PROFILE?

Upskills, who specialise in building the communication skills of people in the New Zealand workforce, recently talked about how they link with libraries to help their clients continue to learn once their courses are done. In their blog post titled Libraries-changelives: they describe how libraries help children and young people develop imagination and creativity, adults gain the opportunity to learn about technology and how to use it and offer vital access to digital resources, including devices, web and Wi-fi, and learning tools such as Lynda.com.

But what if library members could only access Lynda.com if they had a Linked-in account?

Libraries around New Zealand are discovering this is now the case for this widely used, and once unrestricted, site. Linkedin, who have owned Lynda.com since 2015, are pitching these changes as an ‘Upgrade.’ In answer to privacy concerns, Linkedin say that you can have a regular profile, or an ‘obscure profile,’ which allows you to set your last name to initial only, turn off the profile’s public visibility for search engines and manage who can discover you on Linkedin. Not only is this arduous for the user, it gives Linkedin access to your data as a Linkedin user as well as a Lynda user.

Stanford University have made a strong statement about digital content providers seeking personally identifiable individual patron data in their

Statement on Patron Privacy and Database Access. This statement

comes from the principles of protection of patron privacy that libraries have long espoused. Libraries are trusted providers of these services, and value that role: ‘We commit to maintaining the same standards of privacy for our customers using databases that we have long maintained for users of physical materials.’

So the changes Linkedin have made raises issues of both user privacy and potential barriers to access. Has your library had this discussion with Linkedin? Read the Stanford Statement and think about what you can say to express your concern. Think about using this change as a platform for helping your members understand and protect their personal data as much as possible.

BROADCASTING WATCHDOG TARGETS HARM

On 14 July, Media Watch wrote about the tension of freedom of expression and protecting vulnerable communities: Broadcasting watchdog targets

harm. The Broadcasting Standards Authority, lead by ex-chief Censor Bill Hastings, has announced a strategic refresh which re-examines their role in preventing harm. ‘In dealing with complaints about broadcast content, the BSA considers whether a broadcast has caused harm to a degree that justifies limiting the right to freedom of expression. The right to freedom of expression is an important right, for both broadcasters to broadcast and audiences to receive, but comes with responsibilities.’ The Authority states ‘We will also assess what further changes to the Broadcasting Codes may be required taking into account the unprecedented terrorist attack in Christchurch.’ Watch this space.

Please send comments, suggestions or questions to Scfreedom@lianza.org. nz