Zimmer-Information and Internet Policy

Librarians’ Attitudes Regarding Information and Internet PrivacyAuthor(s): Michael ZimmerSource: The Library Quarterly, Vol. 84, No. 2 (April 2014), pp. 123-151Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/675329 .

Accessed: 29/09/2014 11:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheLibrary Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.65.109.20 on Mon, 29 Sep 2014 11:59:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/675329?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Information and Internet Privacy
Librarians’ Attitudes Regarding
Michael Zimmer

ABSTRACT

This article reports findings from a new survey measuring librarians’ views on privacy rights and

protecting library users’ privacy. The study, which builds on a 2008 American Library Associa-

tion survey assessing librarians’ attitudes about privacy, provides important data that will help

privacy advocates evaluate the state of privacy in the United States and libraries’ role in protect-

ing library users’ privacy. Overall, the results indicate a high level of concern among respondents

over information privacy and a desire to control access and use of personal information, but they

also reflect some shifts in privacy attitudes compared to the 2008 study. Implications are dis-

cussed for future advocacy and outreach by the American Library Association and related ad-

vocacy and educational groups.

T raditionally, the context of the library brings with it specific norms of information

flow regarding patron activity, including a professional commitment to patron pri-

vacy ðFoerstel 1991; Gorman 2000; American Library Association 2006a; Morgan

2006Þ. In the library setting, a patron’s intellectual activities are protected by decades of

established norms and practices intended to preserve patron privacy and confidentiality,

most stemming from the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights and related

interpretations ðAmerican Library Association 2002, 2006bÞ. As a matter of professional ethics,

most libraries protect patron privacy by engaging in limited tracking of user activities, insti-

tuting short-term data retention policies, and generally enabling the anonymous browsing of

materials. These are the existing privacy norms within the library context, and they are the

cornerstone of what makes up the “librarian ethics.”

However, these norms are being increasingly challenged from numerous fronts. For ex-

ample, law enforcement and government agencies have historically pressured libraries to

turn over data on patron activities ðMcFadden 1987; Kennedy 1989; Foerstel 1991; Doyle 2003;

Foerstel 2004Þ, and provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act have sparked new concerns about law

This research was made possible by a generous grant from the American Library Association’s Office of Intellectual
Freedom and the Open Society Foundations, with special thanks to Barbara Jones and Deborah Caldwell-Stone for theirsupport of this project. Research assistance was provided by Adriana McCleer and Jeremy Mauger, and I would especiallylike to thank Mark Schroeder for his valuable assistance.
Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 123–151. © 2014 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.

0024-2519/2014/8402-0001$10.00

123



enforcement’s ability to secretly request library patron records ðMatz 2008; Reid 2009Þ. In one

124 • The Library Quarterly

notable case, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a National Security Letter to request

all information associated with a Connecticut library’s public computer and imposed a gag order

on the recipients preventing them from informing anyone of receiving the letter ðGoldberg2005; Jones 2009Þ.

Additionally, new so-called Library 2.0 tools and services promise to improve the delivery

of library services and enhance patron activities, yet these require the tracking, collecting,

and retaining of data about patron activities ðCasey and Savastinuk 2006; Litwin 2006; Zim-

mer 2013Þ, and given the dominance of social media—where individuals increasingly share

personal information on platforms with porous and shifting boundaries—librarians and

other information professions are confronted with possible shifts in the social norms about

privacy.1

Despite these challenges, patron privacy remains the centerpiece of librarian ethics. The

ALA’s Library Bill of Rights ðAmerican Library Association 2006bÞ begins with the premise that

everyone is entitled to freedom of access, freedom to read texts and view images, and freedom

of thought and expression, and the ALA has repeatedly confirmed the importance of patron

privacy as a necessary ingredient in preserving intellectual freedom ðAmerican Library Associ-

ation 2002, 2012aÞ. The American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom has been

defending privacy rights for nearly forty years, and it has been closely studying privacy concerns

unique to the digital age.

In 2008, the Office for Intellectual Freedom surveyed over 1,100 librarians and allied library

professionals to better understand librarians’ role in and attitudes toward protecting patron

privacy in the face of the challenges noted above ðAmerican Library Association Office for

Intellectual Freedom 2008Þ. This internal research revealed strong opinions about the im-

portance of information privacy and overwhelmingly indicated that librarians consider pri-

vacy a critical issue within the profession and society at large. For example:

• 80 percent of respondents say librarians are doing all they can to prevent

unauthorized access to the personal information and circulation records of patrons;

• 96 percent of the survey respondents agree that people should have more control

over their personal information;

• 88 percent of respondents believe they have an important role to play in educating

the public about the privacy risks they face when using the Internet.

ðAmerican Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom 2008Þ

The 2008 survey provided valuable insights into librarians’ perspective on privacy that

helped to guide the messaging and programming for various ALA privacy-related activities,

1. See, e.g., recent discussions in a special issue of American Libraries by Kniffel ð2008Þ and Solove ð2008Þ.



kmartin

Highlight

such as Choose Privacy Week, a campaign providing libraries with tools to educate and

Librarians’ Attitudes Regarding Privacy • 125

engage patrons about their privacy, including promotional materials, study guides, videos,

and programming ideas.2 In light of the original study, the ALA Office for Intellectual Free-

dom recognized the importance of engaging with the academic community to administer

a more robust and methodologically rigorous study to provide greater insights and better

tools for addressing the issue of library privacy and government surveillance. In 2011, the Office

for Intellectual Freedom commissioned a new survey, the findings of which are reported in this

article. The results provide important data and benchmarks that will help the ALA evaluate

the attitudes of librarians regarding information and Internet privacy and guide the develop-

ment of future initiatives aimed at engaging librarians in public education and advocacy to

advance privacy rights.

Background and Related Work

Librarian Ethics

The general concerns over privacy that motivate this study relate to a set of traditional ethi-

cal values held dear by librarians and information professionals. Within the context of the

United States, a set of “librarian ethics” has emerged from documents and ethical frame-

works refined and codified over time by the ALA.

As early as 1939, the ALA adopted a formal policy statement on intellectual freedom known

as the Library Bill of Rights, which outlined policy positions to ensure free and open access to

public library services. The ALA’s adoption of the Library Bill of Rights marked a moment of

affirmation in the history of American libraries, and from that point forward, the principle

of intellectual freedom has defined the library’s role as a forum for uninhibited intellectual in-

quiry and debate. Revisions and rewordings of the Library Bill of Rights followed as libraries

faced continued challenges to intellectual freedom throughout the politically and socially

tumultuous years from 1939 to 1969, culminating in the version that stands today as a strong

statement expressing the rights of library users to intellectual freedom and the expecta-

tions that the ALA places on libraries to support those rights ðAmerican Library Association

2006bÞ.The Library Bill of Rights begins with the premise that everyone is entitled to freedom

of access, freedom to read texts and view images, and freedom of thought and expression.

Privacy is the bedrock foundation for an individual’s right to freely read and to receive ideas,

information, and points of view—it is a necessary ingredient for achieving and protecting

intellectual freedom. None of these freedoms can survive in an atmosphere in which library

use is monitored and individual reading and library use patterns are made known to anyone

without permission. Only when an individual is assured that her choice of reading material

2. Information about Choose Privacy Week is available at http://www.privacyrevolution.org/.



kmartin

Highlight

does not subject her to reprisals or punishment can the individual enjoy fully the freedom3


to explore her ideas, weigh arguments, and decide for herself what she believes.

Such assurances to protect patron privacy and intellectual freedom are continually chal-

lenged, most commonly through government attempts to gain access to patron records

ðMcFadden 1987; Kennedy 1989; Foerstel 1991, 2004; Doyle 2003Þ. Growing challenges to in-

tellectual freedom and privacy prompted the ALA to reaffirm its commitment to protect-

ing these values, culminating in new policy statements on “Confidentiality of Personally Iden-

tifiable Information about Library Users” ðAmerican Library Association 2012aÞ and “Privacy:

An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights” ðAmerican Library Association 2002Þ.Along with the ALA’s formal responses to new threats, individual librarians and librar-

ies often take their own actions to protect patron privacy and confidentiality, including de-

stroying records of what patrons had borrowed, scrapping plans to use new computer tech-

nology to profile the reading habits of patrons and inform them when works they enjoy are

published, destroying Internet access logs on a daily basis, posting warning signs, and offering

patron education on privacy issues ðMurphy 2003; Sanchez 2003Þ.To summarize, librarians have a rich history of protecting patron privacy, and they have

fought to ensure that the democratic ideal of intellectual freedom survives such challenges

to the privacy and confidentiality of patrons’ information-seeking activities. Protecting these

freedoms is necessary to ensure free and unfettered access to information, the cornerstone

of the ALA’s Code of Ethics and the “librarian ethics” it promotes.

Related Work

During the past few decades, the issue of information privacy has drawn considerable at-

tention among researchers from a range of disciplines, including law, policy, consumer behav-

ior, economics, and sociology, with much of the focus on measuring privacy attitudes and

preferences among the public. Between 1978 and 2004, Alan Westin conducted over thirty

privacy-related surveys, covering general privacy, consumer privacy, medical privacy, and

other privacy-related areas, culminating in his creation of numerous privacy indexes.4 With

the emergence of the Internet as a dominant tool for communication, information-seeking,

and commerce, increased attention was placed on the privacy attitudes of online users. One

of the first attempts to understand the nature of online privacy concerns was a 1999 study by

Lorrie Cranor and her colleagues at AT&T Labs ðCranor, Reagle, and Ackerman 1999Þ, whichreported a high level of concern about privacy in general and particularly on the Internet.

Numerous important empirical studies on privacy attitudes and opinions of Internet users

have followed, ranging from studies that attempt to update Cranor et al.’s original investiga-

tions and frameworks ðMalhotra, Kim, and Agarwal 2004; Tsai et al. 2006; Buchanan et al.

4. For a summary of Westin’s work, see Kumaraguru and Cranor ð2005Þ.3. See, broadly, American Library Association ð2012bÞ.



kmartin

Highlight

2007Þ, studies exploring economic and psychological aspects of information sharing in social


networking environments ðGross and Acquisti 2005; Acquisiti and Gross 2006Þ, and inves-

tigations of any generational differences in privacy attitudes and behaviors online ðHoof-nagle et al. 2010Þ, just to identify a few.

Despite the importance placed on patron privacy within the “librarian ethics,” there has

been little study of the privacy attitudes and practices of librarians and information profes-

sionals themselves. Related empirical research has ranged from surveys on how library re-

sponses to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks implicate patron privacy ðEstabrook 2002Þto the tracking of laws and court cases related to protecting the confidentiality of library

records ðKennedy 1989; Carson 2001Þ. Other than the ALA’s 2008 survey, no significant re-

search surveying privacy-related opinions and attitudes of librarians and information profes-

sionals has been published.

Method

Participants

The target population of this study was defined as librarians and related information pro-

fessionals currently practicing within the United States, including those in public, academic,

school, and special libraries. A nonprobability self-selective sampling method was used to

recruit participants: notice of the survey was posted on web and social media platforms by

the author and the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom; promoted by the ALA through an

online press release; published in American Libraries, the ALA’s flagship magazine, with circu-

lation of 65,000; and communicated on various e-mail lists for librarians and related infor-

mation professionals. State library associations were also asked to promote the survey to

their membership through e-mail, social media, or related communication channels.

This purposive sampling method generated 1,866 unique survey submissions, with 1,214

surveys completed to the end. Respondents were not required to answer all of the questions.

Half the respondents worked in public libraries, with 36 percent in academic library settings.

Over 50 percent had the title “librarian,” while one-fourth were “library administrators.” The

vast majority of respondents were between the ages of twenty-five and sixty-four. One-third

of the respondents were from the Northeast of the United States. The overall demographic

breakdowns of respondents are available in table 1 ðlibrary typeÞ, table 2 ðjob title/descriptionÞ,table 3 ðageÞ, table 4 ðeducationÞ, and table 5 ðgeographic regionÞ.

Materials

The study comprised a descriptive survey with forty-four questions divided into four parts.

Part 1, titled “General Privacy Attitudes 1,” generally mirrored the questions asked in the 2008

ALA study, measuring privacy attitudes of respondents related to concerns over commercial

and governmental privacy threats, online privacy, and the role of libraries. Respondents



kmartin

Highlight

Table 2. Job Title or Job Description of Respondents

Number of Respondents %

Librarian 688 57

Library paraprofessional or library worker 90 7

Student worker or intern 3 0

Student in a graduate library science program 21 2

Library volunteer 2 0

Library administrator ðmanagementÞ 305 25

Library administrator ðstaff levelÞ 63 5

Library trustee or board member 4 0

Library patron 3 0

Other 30 2

Total 1,209 100

Table 1. Type of Library Respondents Work In


Academic 431 36

Public 606 50

School 58 5

Special 52 4

Other 54 4

Not currently employed 6 0

Total 1,207 100

Table 3. Age of Respondents


Under 15 years 0 0

15–24 years 14 1

25–34 years 270 23

35–44 years 220 18

45–54 years 285 24

55–64 years 348 29

65 years and over 53 4

Total 1,190 100



were provided with a five-point ordinal scale of “strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “neither agree

Table 4. Highest Level of Education Attained by Respondents


High school/GED 12 1

Some college 24 2

Two-year college degree 26 2

Four-year college degree 111 9

Masters degree 998 82

Doctoral degree 44 4

Total 1,205 100

Table 5. Geographic Region of Respondents


Northeast 391 33

Midwest 251 21

South 269 23

West 244 21

Non–United States 17 1

Total 1,172 100


nor disagree,” “agree,” and “strongly agree” to indicate their response.

Part 2, “Library Practices,” also built upon the 2008 study, requesting information about

privacy-related practices at the respondents’ home library, such as patron record retention

policies, use and communication of privacy policies, and frequency of law enforcement re-

quests for patron records. This part comprised nominal questions ðe.g., yes/noÞ to collect

information from the respondents.

The third part of the survey, titled “General Privacy Attitudes 2,” sought additional in-

formation about respondents’ general privacy attitudes. This section utilized five-point ordi-

nal scales as well as nominal questions, and it was developed from established privacy-related

question sets developed by Tom Buchanan et al. ð2007Þ, as well as questions asked by Chris

Hoofnagle and his colleagues ð2010Þ when studying the privacy attitudes of American adults.

The fourth section collected demographic data from the respondents.

Procedure

The survey was administered online via the Qualtrics software platform, provided through

the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee ðUWMÞ. The UWM Institutional Review Board ap-



proved the survey and consent materials; no personally identifiable information was col-


lected. The survey was available online from December 1, 2011, until March 31, 2012, at http://

tinyurl.com/ALAprivacysurvey. Upon accessing the link, respondents were required to agree

to the online consent form before they were able to access the survey instrument. The survey

was self-paced, allowing respondents to leave and return to where they left off at any time

while the survey was active. Respondents were not required to answer all of the questions.

Limitations

A nonprobability purposive sampling method was used to quickly and efficiently target active

librarians and information professionals. Because random sampling was not utilized, the re-

sults presented are not necessarily statistically generalizable to the entire population of library

professionals. Notwithstanding this limitation, purposive sampling can provide information-

rich responses to help learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the target

population ðPatton 2002Þ. Thus, the choice of purposive sampling is appropriate to provide

rich benchmark data that will help the ALA build on its internal 2008 study and evaluate

the attitudes of librarians regarding information and Internet privacy, with the goal of guid-

ing the development of future initiatives aimed at engaging librarians in public education

and advocacy to advance privacy rights. Future research, discussed below, can address this

limitation.

Results

In order to ascertain the current attitudes of librarian and information professionals regard-

ing both information and online privacy concerns, descriptive statistics were calculated and

a series of chi-square and ANOVA analyses were conducted to determine whether or not

response patterns differed according to salient demographic variables: age, education level,

type of library, and geographic location. Results are presented in the following sections. They

are organized according to the structure of the survey.

General Privacy Attitudes 1

Overall Results

This first part of the survey generally mirrored the questions asked in the 2008 ALA study,

measuring privacy attitudes of respondents related to concerns over commercial and govern-

mental privacy threats, online privacy, and the role of libraries. Overall results are reported

in table 6, which includes 2008 and 2012 responses. Overall, the results indicate a high level

of concern among respondents over information privacy and a desire to control access and

use of personal information. Nearly all respondents—95 percent—agree or strongly agree

that individuals should be able to control who sees their personal information. While 90 per-

cent agree or strongly agree that companies are collecting too much personal information,



only 70 percent are similarly concerned about government data collection practices. Over 95 per-


cent of respondents feel that government agencies and businesses should not share personal

information with third parties without authorization and that when personal information is

provided to a company for a specific purpose, it should not be used for anything other than

that stated purpose. And over 80 percent feel that Congress should do more to protect per-

sonal information from unauthorized disclosure.

Regarding library-specific issues, 97 percent of respondents agree or strongly agree that

libraries should never share personal information and circulation or Internet records with-

out authorization or a court order. Over three-quarters of respondents feel that libraries are

doing all they can do to prevent unauthorized access to patrons’ personal information and

circulation records, and over three-quarters of respondents feel that libraries should play a

role in educating the general public about issues of personal privacy and risks resulting from

using the Internet.

Comparison to 2008

The first part of the 2012 study repeated the questions from the 2008 survey, providing a

rudimentary comparison of attitudes between the two time periods.5 Overall, attitudes and

responses in 2012 aligned with those from 2008, with some notable differences. In both sur-

veys, the vast majority ð95 percent in 2008, 90 percent in 2012Þ of respondents expressed

concern that “companies are collecting too much personal information about me and other

individuals.” However those who “strongly agree” dropped from 70 percent in 2008 to only

54 percent in 2012, indicating a possible dampening in the level of concern over time. Simi-

larly, the number of those who “strongly agree” with the statement expressing concern “that

the government is collecting too much personal information about me and other individ-

uals” dropped from 61 percent to 33 percent, with 22 percent of respondents opting for the

“neither agree nor disagree” option.

When considering the statement “Libraries should play a role in educating the general

public about issues of personal privacy,” 92 percent of respondents in 2008 either agreed or

strongly agreed, while only 77 percent in 2012 held the same view. Of the 2012 respondents,

18 percent took a neutral “neither agree nor disagree” position. Similarly, the percentage of re-

spondents who agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “Congress should adopt more

laws that protect personal information from unauthorized disclosure” dropped from 96 per-

cent in 2008 to 82 percent in 2012, with 15 percent taking a neutral position.

In 2012, 37 percent of respondents were neutral to the statement “I’m concerned that

search engines are sharing my personal information and search records with the government.”

5. The 2008 survey only had a four-item response scale: “strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “agree,” and “strongly agree.”
The 2012 survey, by comparison, included a fifth neutral option, “neither agree nor disagree,” allowing for greaterrefinement of opinions expressed in the later survey.


Table 6. General Privacy Attitudes 1 Responses ð2008 and 2012Þ

Question

StronglyDisagreeð%Þ

Disagreeð%Þ

NeitherAgree norDisagreeð%Þ

Agreeð%Þ

StronglyAgreeð%Þ

1. Individuals should be able to control

who sees their personal information:

2008 3 1 22 74

2012 3 0 2 23 72

2. I’m concerned that companies are

collecting too much personal information

about me and other individuals:

2008 2 3 25 70

2012 1 2 7 36 54

3. I’m concerned that the government is

collecting too much personal information

about me and other individuals:

2008 2 8 29 61

2012 1 6 22 37 33

4. Government agencies should not share

personal information with third parties

unless it has been authorized by the

individual or a court of law:

2008 2 1 14 82

2012 0 1 2 21 76

5. Librarians are doing all they can to prevent

unauthorized access to individuals’

personal information and circulation

records:

2008 2 17 57 24

2012 1 10 13 53 22

6.Whenpeople give personal information to a

company for a specific purpose, the com-

pany should only use the information for

that purpose:

2008 2 0 11 87

2012 0 1 2 23 74

7. I don’t mind if the government knows what

I’ve been reading:

2008 57 28 12 3

2012 55 25 10 9 2

8. Businesses should not share personal

information with third parties unless they

first obtain specific permission of the

individual:

2008 0 0 0 0

2012 0 0 1 20 78

9. I don’t mind if people can viewmy personal

information on the Internet. I have nothing

to hide:

2008 63 30 6 1

2012 52 34 9 4 1

132



Table 6. (Continued )

Question

StronglyDisagreeð%Þ

Disagreeð%Þ

NeitherAgree norDisagreeð%Þ

Agreeð%Þ

StronglyAgreeð%Þ

10. Libraries should never share personal

information, circulation records, or

Internet use records with third parties


individual or by a court of law:

2008 1 3 18 78

2012 1 1 2 18 79

11. Companies and government agencies

that collect personal information should

take more steps to prevent unauthorized

access to individuals’ personal

information:

2008 1 0 14 84

2012 0 0 3 25 71

12. Librarians should play a role in educating

the general public on the potential privacy

rights risks resulting from using the Inter-

net:

2008 1 5 45 49

2012 1 5 15 48 31

13. Libraries should play a role in educating

the general public about issues of

personal privacy:

2008 1 7 49 43

2012 1 4 18 45 32

14. Congress should adopt more laws that

protect personal information from

unauthorized disclosure:

2008 1 4 31 65

2012 1 3 15 38 44

15. Search engines such as Google, Yahoo,

and Bing should prominently display

policies on how a user’s information

is treated:

2008 0 2 37 61

2012 1 2 6 42 50

16. I’m concerned that search engines are

sharing my personal information and

search records with the government:

2008 1 4 31 65

2012 1 3 15 38 44

17. I self-censor my search and reading

habits out of fear that my records could

be misunderstood:

2008 24 52 19 6

2012 26 40 19 12 3

Note.—The 2008 survey did not have a “neither agree nor disagree” option.

133



This large neutral position came from both a reduction in those who disagreed from 30 per-


cent in 2008 to 20 percent in 2008 and a reduction in those who agreed or strongly agreed

ð68 percent in 2008 down to 41 percent in 2012Þ.

Demographic Variables and Response Patterns

The first seventeen questions in this section used the five-point Likert scale, and linear

regression and ANOVA analyses were run to determine whether or not there were significant

differences in ratings by respondent age, education level, type of library, and geographic

location. Analyses indicated that there were no significant differences in ratings based on

the respondent’s education level or the type of library the respondent worked in but that

there were some differences in mean ratings based on age and geographic region:

• Age: ANOVA results indicated that there were significant differences in mean

ratings for six of the seventeen questions based on age groupings, and follow-up

tests using Holm’s sequential Bonferroni adjustment indicate that differences

lie between respondents in the 55–64 age group and those in the 25–34 and

35–44 age groups. Means, p -values, and indicators of heterogeneous groups

are presented in table 7. Due to space restrictions, F-values and other descriptive

statistics are not presented, but these are available upon request. An overall

examination of age group means suggests an increase in concern as respondent

age increases, and linear regressions of responses on age indicate that this

pattern is generally true statistically, but this holds little practical significance as

age only accounted for between 0 percent and 2 percent of variation in scores

across all questions.

• Geographic region: ANOVA results indicated that there were significant

differences in mean ratings for four of the seventeen questions based on

geographic region, and follow-up tests using Holm’s sequential Bonferroni

adjustment indicate that differences lie primarily between respondents from the

South and respondents from other regions, although the respondents from the

Midwest differed from the respondents from the West on one item. Means,

p-values, and indicators of heterogeneous groups are presented in table 8. Due

to space restrictions, F-values and other descriptive statistics are not presented,

but they are available upon request.

Library Practices

Overall Results

Part 2 of the survey requested information about privacy-related practices at the respon-

dent’s home library, such as patron record retention policies, use and communication of privacy



policies, and frequency of law enforcement requests for patron records. Results are reported

Table 7. General Privacy Attitudes 1 Questions That Differed According to Age

Question15–24ðAÞ

25–34ðBÞ

35–44ðCÞ

45–54ðDÞ

55–64ðEÞ

651ðFÞ

2. I’m concerned that companies are

collecting too much personal

information about me and other

individuals.*** 3.43 3.76D, E 3.95 4.00B 4.06B 4.02

4. Government agencies should not share

personal information with third parties


individual or a court of law.** 3.93 3.72E 3.77 3.87 3.99B 4.09

9. I don’t mind if people can view my

personal information on the Internet.

I have nothing to hide.** 1.50 1.77E 1.81E 1.65 1.56B, C 1.67

15. Search engines, such as Google, Yahoo,

and Bing, should prominently display

policies on how a user’s information is

treated.** 4.57 4.26E 4.37 4.43 4.47B 4.50

16. I’m concerned that search engines are

sharing my personal information and

search records with the government.** 2.79 3.17E 3.24 3.34 3.45B 3.25

17. I self-censor my search and reading

habits out of fear that my records

could be misunderstood.*** 1.79 2.08E 2.24 2.27 2.42E 2.43

Note.—Superscripts indicate heterogeneity of group means.** p < .01.*** p < .001.


in tables 9–12, and they reveal how libraries are currently addressing issues of patron privacy.

While 69 percent of respondents indicate that their library has established practices or

procedures for dealing with government requests for patron information, only 51 percent

indicate that staff training is performed to handle such requests. Nearly 30 percent of re-

spondents indicate that their library collects and retains less patron data than before in

response to concerns about antiterrorism laws and possible records requests from law en-

forcement agencies; 40 percent indicate that their library made no changes to data collec-

tion or retention policies. Half of all respondents indicated that there were no known in-

stances when law enforcement served the library with a request for patron data, while

36 percent were unsure. Instances totaling fewer than ten in the past five years were re-

ported by 14 percent of respondents.

Nearly a third of respondents indicate knowledge of patrons making inquires to library

staff regarding privacy-related issues, with 36 percent stating that patrons have not made



Table 9. “Library Practices” Overall Results ðQuestions 18, 19, 21, 22, 26, 27, and 20Þ

Question Yes NoDon’tKnow

18. Does your library have any established practices or

procedures for dealing with requests for information from

patron records by law enforcement or other government

officials? 881 158 247

19. Does your library train staff on how to handle requests

for information from patron records made by law enforce-

ment or other government officials? 652 431 203

21. Have patrons made inquiries to library staff regarding privacy

of patron records, or any other surveillance issue? 400 467 420

22. Does your library communicate privacy policies to patrons? 732 334 220

26. In the past 5 years, have you participated in any information

sessions, lectures, seminars, or other

events related to privacy and surveillance? 686 519 23

27. In the past 5 years, has your library/organization hosted

ororganizedpublic informationsessions, lectures, seminars, or

other events related to privacy and surveillance? 160 833 234

Yes—More

Yes—Less No

Don’t

Know

20. Has your library changed any of its policies regarding

the collection and retention of patron information in response

to antiterrorism laws? 23 375 513 373

Table 8. General Privacy Attitudes 1 Questions That Differed According to Geographic Region

QuestionNortheast

ðAÞMidwest

ðBÞSouthðCÞ

WestðDÞ

7. I don’t mind if the government knows what I’ve

been reading.*** 1.68C 1.73C 2.00A, B, D 1.69C

8. Businesses should not share personal information

with third parties unless they first obtain specific

permission of the individual.** 4.79C 4.82C, D 4.69A, B 4.72B

10. Libraries should never share personal information,

circulation records, or Internet use records with

third parties unless it has been authorized by the

individual or a court of law.* 4.77C 4.77C 4.62A, B, D 4.77C

11. Companies and government agencies that collect

personal information should take more steps to

prevent unauthorized access to individuals’

personal information.* 4.74C 4.66 4.59A 4.66

Note.—Superscripts indicate heterogeneity of group means.* p < .05.** p < .01.*** p < .001.



Table 11. “Library Practices” Overall Results ðQuestion 24Þ

Have any aspects of your library’s resources or services been restrictedor removed from public review and/or circulation in reaction to

antiterrorism or other law enforcement related measures?

Response BooksPrint Magazines and

NewspapersOnline

DatabasesGovernmentDocuments

InternetAccess

Yes 16 10 9 28 59

No 984 984 969 933 923

Don’t know 219 223 241 255 235

Prefer not to

respond 6 7 6 6 7

able 12. “Library Practices” Overall Results ðQuestion 25Þ

hinking of the past 5 years, please identifye number of instances in which law enforcementr a government agency served the library withn official legal order for library records,aterials, or other content. Number of Responses %

one 609 50

ess than 10 171 14

0–25 5 0

ore than 25 2 0

on’t know 438 36

refer not to answer 5 0

Table 10. “Library Practices” Overall Results ðQuestion 23Þ

23. How are privacy policies communicated to patrons,as related to these specific activities?

General PatronData

Circulation/BorrowingData

Computer/InternetUsage

Written policy with card issuance 260 273 187

On notices/signs 94 70 139

On the library website 353 327 332

On/near computers 57 22 236

Other 161 155 125

Don’t know 47 50 59

None 34 45 43

T

Tthoam

N

L

1

M

D

P



such inquires, and another one-third stating that they do not know. Only 57 percent indicate


that their library communicates privacy policies to patrons, mostly through written policies

provided when a library account is created and on the library’s website. Less frequently,

privacy policies are displayed in the library itself or near computer terminals.

Over half of the respondents—56 percent—have participated in some form of privacy-

related event or information session within the past five years. And while over 75 percent of

the respondents feel that libraries should play a role in educating the general public about

privacy issues ðsee above sectionÞ, only 13 percent indicate that their library has hosted or

organized information sessions, lectures, or other public events related to privacy and surveil-

lance in the past five years.

Only 1 percent of respondents indicate that books, magazines, newspapers, or online data-

bases have been restricted or removed from public accessibility in reaction to antiterrorism

or other law enforcement-related measures. Slightly more of the respondents indicate that

government documents and Internet access have been restricted for similar reasons, 2 per-

cent and 5 percent, respectively.


While overall results revealed a relatively high occurrence of making privacy policies avail-

able on library websites, during the issuance of a library card, or near computer terminals, chi-

square analyses of responses based on demographic information provide additional insights

ðsee table 13Þ. For example, when isolating the geographic location of respondents, gaps in

the display of privacy policies about general patron data emerge:

• Fewer than expected respondents in the Northeast indicated that privacy policies

were shared with patrons when a library card was issued ðnote: respondents did not

specifically indicate that the privacy policy was not shown; they merely failed to

indicate that they were sharedÞ.• Fewer than expected respondents in the South indicated that privacy policies were

provided on the library website.

• More than expected respondents in the Midwest indicated that they did not know

if or how privacy policies were shared with patrons.

Similarly, with regard to the display of privacy policies about circulation/borrowing data:

• Fewer than expected respondents in the Northeast indicated that these particular

privacy policies were shared with patrons when a library card was issued.

• Fewer than expected respondents in the South indicated that these privacy policies

were provided on the library website.



Table 13. Chi-Square Analyses of Question 23 Based on Geographic Region

Privacy Policies Are Communicatedto Patrons Regarding:

Standardized Residuals

x2 Response Northeast Midwest South West

General patron data:

When the library card was issued 15.43*** Yes 22.8 1.2 .4 1.7

NR 1.4 2.6 .2 2.9

On the library’s website 16.01*** Yes 2.6 1.8 22.5 1.3

NR .4 21.2 1.6 2.8

Don’t know 8.78* Yes 21.5 2.4 2.1 2.5

NR .3 2.5 .0 .1

Circulation/borrowing data:

When the library card was issued 14.47** Yes 22.6 1.6 0.1 1.4

NR 1.4 20.8 0.0 20.7

On the library’s website 13.70** Yes 2.4 1.0 22.4 1.8

NR .2 2.6 1.4 21.1

Internet usage:

When the library card was issued 16.76*** Yes 23.1 1.4 1.4 .9

NR 1.3 2.6 2.6 20.4

On the library website 10.56* Yes 2.5 1.7 21.9 .8

NR 2.3 21.1 1.2 20.5

Don’t know 8.43* Yes 2.3 2.3 21.7 2.2

NR .1 2.5 .4 .0

Note.—N 5 1,160. NR 5 no response.* p < .05.** p < .01.*** p < .001.


And regarding the display of privacy policies about computer/Internet usage:

• Fewer than expected respondents in the Northeast indicated that these privacy

policies were shared with patrons when a library card was issued.

• Fewer than expected respondents in the South indicated that these privacy

policies were provided on the library website.

• More than expected respondents in the Midwest indicated that they did not know

if or how privacy policies were shared with patrons.

An analysis of responses to the same question based on the type of library provides

similar insights ðtable 14Þ. Across nearly all combinations of privacy policy and means of

sharing with patrons, more than expected respondents from public libraries indicated that

privacy policies were shared with patrons, while considerably fewer than expected respon-

dents from academic libraries indicated that the same policies were shared with their pa-

trons.



General Privacy Attitudes 2

Table 14. Chi-Square Analyses of Question 23 Based on Type of Library

Standardized Residuals

Academic Public

Privacy Policies Are Communicatedto Patrons Regarding: x2 Yes

NoResponse Yes

NoResponse

General patron data:

When the library card was issued 98.64*** 26.7 5.6 3.6 23.1

On notices/signs displayed in library 26.58*** 23.8 3.2 1.1 2.9

On the library’s website 17.63*** 22.7 2.2 1.8 21.5

On/near computers 12.21*** 22.6 2.2 .6 2.5

Circulation/borrowing data:


On notices/signs displayed in library 14.77*** 22.9 2.4 .7 2.6


Other 13.28*** 22.6 2.2 1.0 2.9

Internet usage:


On notices/signs displayed in library 34.30*** 24.2 3.5 1.6 21.3


On/near computers 75.87*** 25.9 5.0 3.0 22.6

Note.—N 5 1,037.*** p < .001.


Overall Results

The third part of the survey, titled “General Privacy Attitudes 2,” sought additional infor-

mation about respondents’ general privacy attitudes. Results are reported in tables 15–17,

and they indicate respondents’ general attitudes and level of concern across a range of in-

formation and online privacy issues. When asked about their overall concern about their

privacy on the Internet, 82 percent indicated that they were either very or somewhat con-

cerned. This concern was targeted largely at businesses, government, or law enforcement

gaining access to personal information, rather than friends or family members. When

asked about level of concern with numerous privacy scenarios, respondents showed the

highest level of concern for issues of the security of information provided to online com-

panies, strangers obtaining personal information gleaned from online activities, and iden-

tity theft. Levels of concerns were lowest—but still significant—related to issues of being

asked for personal information during online purchases, the ability to gain access to web

browsing history from one’s computer, the fact that mobile phone providers can track one’s

location, and the fact that government or law enforcement might obtain information from

mobile phone records.



Looking at particular cases, respondents revealed themselves to be concerned about

Table 15. “General Privacy Attitudes 2” Responses ðQuestions 28–32Þ

QuestionVery

ConcernedSomewhatConcerned

Not TooConcerned

Not at AllConcerned

Don’tKnow

28. Generally, how concerned are you

about your privacy while using

the Internet? 309 697 193 14 1

29. How concerned are you about

family, friends and people whom

you know getting personal infor-

mation about you and your web

activities? 97 381 569 160 6


businesses and people whom

you do not know getting personal

information about you and your

web activities? 592 481 125 11 1

31. How concerned are you about the

government and law enforcement

getting personal information about

you and your web activities? 361 505 292 50 2

Beneficial

to You

Harmful

to You Both Neither

Don’t

Know

32. If an online site did track the web

pages you have visited, do you think

that would be . . . 6 316 556 244 89


privacy and protecting the privacy rights of users online. Over two-thirds agree or strongly

agree with the suggestion that permission should be gained before a photo or a video of

a person can be posted online. Nearly two-thirds feel that there should be legislation giv-

ing people the right to access everything that a website knows about them, and over two-

thirds feel there should be a law requiring websites and advertising companies to delete all

stored information about an individual. In the case of online websites tracking the pages

visited, 0 percent thought that such tracking would be purely beneficial, 26 percent consid-

ered such tracking harmful, 46 percent saw both benefits and harm, and one-fifth viewed

online tracking as neither beneficial nor harmful. Almost three-quarters of respondents in-

dicated that they are more concerned about online privacy issues than five years ago, largely

due to the fact that awareness of such issues have increased.


Performing ANOVA analyses according to salient demographic variables revealed statis-

tically significant differences in mean responses based on the age of the respondents on



Table 16. General Privacy Attitudes 2 Responses ðQuestion 33Þ

33. Please indicate yourlevel of privacy concernfor each of the followingscenarios:

Not at AllConcerned

SomewhatUnconcerned

NeitherConcerned

norUnconcerned

SomewhatConcerned

VeryConcerned

1. That you are asked for

too much personal

information when you

make online purchases? 96 159 211 577 169

2. Are you concerned about

online identity theft? 5 39 32 587 547


the security of your

information given to

online companies? 6 45 41 568 550

4. Are you concerned that

you are asked for too

much personal informa-

tion when you join a

social networking site? 41 72 173 453 461


people you do not know

obtaining personal infor-

mation about you from

your online activities? 10 61 93 547 495


who might access your

medical records

electronically? 79 84 197 459 390


who might access your

web browsing history

from your computer

itself? 110 158 241 460 238


search engines tracking

your keywords and sites

you visit? 33 98 181 539 357


the use of web cookies

or other means of tracking

your visits to other

websites? 29 98 156 556 362


the ability of e-mail provi-

ders to view the content

of your inbox and

messages? 33 55 143 453 520


cellphone providers might

track your physical

location? 78 108 228 434 359



numerous questions ðtable 18Þ. Considering the general question of how concerned respon-

Table 16. (Continued )

33. Please indicate yourlevel of privacy concernfor each of the followingscenarios:

Not at AllConcerned

SomewhatUnconcerned

NeitherConcerned

norUnconcerned

SomewhatConcerned

VeryConcerned


mobile and social net-

working applications

might collect information

about your activities

online? 35 63 136 541 433


mobile phone applications

ðnot the provider itselfÞmight collect informa-

tion about your physical

location? 65 71 178 450 442


government or law en-

forcementmight obtain

information about you

from yourmobile phone

records? 75 78 285 436 332


dents are about privacy while using the Internet, respondents aged 25–34 and 35–44 were,

on average, less concerned than 55–64-year-olds. Respondents aged 25–34 were, on average,

less concerned than respondents 55 and older when asked about the following scenarios:

that you are asked for too much personal information when you make online purchases,

online identify theft, and who might access your web browsing history from your computer

itself. Related, 35–44-year-olds were less likely to agree with the statement “Generally speak-

ing, anyone who uploads a photo or video of me to the Internet where I am clearly recog-

nizable should first get my permission” than 55–64-year-olds.

Analysis

General Privacy Attitudes

As noted above, the results of the 2012 survey revealed a high level of general concern over

privacy and a desire among respondents to retain control over who has access to their per-

sonal information. In terms of outreach and education, the results suggest that the Ameri-

can Library Association and related advocacy groups have been successful in ensuring that

librarians and information professionals are largely aligned with the broader “librarian ethics”

regarding the protection of patron privacy and intellectual freedom and understand the



Table 17. General Privacy Attitudes 2 Responses ðQuestions 34–39Þ

Question Yes NoDon’tKnow

I’dRatherNot Say

34. Have you ever refused to give in-

formation to a business or a company

because you thought it was not really

necessary or was too personal? 1,088 88 31 5

35. Do you think there should be

a law that gives people the

right to know everything that

a website knows about them,

or do you feel such a law is

not necessary? 787 184 236 NA

36. Do you think there should be a

law that requires websites and ad-

vertising companies to delete all

stored information about an individ-

ual, or do you feel such a law is not

necessary? 817 155 238 NA

Strongly

Disagree Disagree

Neither

Agree nor

Disagree Agree

Strongly

Agree

37. Generally speaking, anyone

who uploads a photo or

video ofme to the Internet

where I am clearly recognizable

should first get my permission. 27 119 236 473 356

More

Concerned

Less

Concerned Same

Don’t

Know

38. Compared to five years ago, would

you say you aremore concerned

about privacy issues on the

Internet, less concerned, or

that you have the same level of

concern? 888 22 301 1

You Know

More About

Risks

You Have

More to

Lose

Personal

Experience

Some

Other

Reason

Don’t

Know

39. Please tellmewhich one of

the following is themost

important reason you aremore

concerned about privacy issues

on the Internet than you were

five years ago. 612 98 59 113 5

Note.—NA 5 Not applicable.



threats presented by increased surveillance and collection of information by commercial and

Table 18. General Privacy Attitudes 2 Questions That Differed According to Age

Question15–24ðAÞ

25–34ðBÞ

35–44ðCÞ

45–54ðDÞ

55–64ðEÞ

651ðFÞ

General questions:

28. Generally, how concerned are

you about your privacy while

using the Internet?* ð1–4 scaleÞ 2.07 1.99E 2.00E 2.05 2.17B, C 2.06


the government and law enforcement

getting personal information about

you and your web activities?*

ð1–4 scaleÞ 2.07 1.88E 1.90 1.93 2.08B 2.08

35. Generally speaking, anyone who

uploads a photo or video of me to

the Internet where I am clearly

recognizable should first get my

permission.*** ð1–5 scaleÞ 4.29 3.63D, E, F 3.75E 3.87B 3.97B, C 3.83B

33. Level of concern for the following

ð1–5 scaleÞ:33–1. You are asked for toomuch

personal information when you

make online purchases.*** 3.14 3.25E, F 3.42 3.44 3.64B 3.75B

33–2. Online identity theft.** 4.21 4.26E 4.28 4.32 4.46B 4.42

33–5. People you do not know

obtaining personal information

about you from your online

activities.* 4.57 4.12 4.11 4.16 4.30 4.38

33–6. Whomight access yourmedical

records electronically.*** 3.71 3.50 3.65 3.92 4.05 4.00

33–7. Who might access your web

browsing history from your

computer itself.*** 2.86 3.16E, F 3.45 3.39 3.70B 3.72B

Note.—Superscripts indicate heterogeneity of group means.* p < .05.** p < .01.*** p < .001.


government bodies.

While overall privacy attitudes in 2012 aligned with those from 2008, some of the dif-

ferences are worth attention. In 2012, the percentage of respondents who “strongly agreed”

that “companies are collecting too much personal information about me and other indi-

viduals” dropped from 70 percent to only 54 percent in 2012. Similarly, the number of those

who “strongly agreed” with the statement expressing concern “that the government is col-

lecting too much personal information about me and other individuals” dropped from

61 percent to 33 percent, with 22 percent of respondents opting for the “neither agree nor



disagree” option. This tempering of the level of concern over time might be due to nu-


merous factors: perhaps respondents truly are no longer as concerned with commercial or

government data collection or perhaps there has been some normalization and desensitiv-

ity to these practices since 2008. Further, while respondents indicated a lower concern over

commercial and government data collection, overall privacy concerns, as reported in ques-

tions 38 and 39, grew from five years ago, largely due to increased awareness of broader

privacy risks. Privacy advocates should continue to target education and outreach on issues

of commercial and government surveillance at librarian and information professionals—

such as the ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom’s Choose Privacy Week initiative—to en-

sure that librarians and information professionals maintain sufficient awareness of both

commercial and government surveillance practices, ensuring that any opinions expressed

ðwhether expressing strong concern or notÞ are properly informed.

If the opinions expressed in the survey indeed reflect a dampening of concern among

librarians and information professionals regarding these issues, the ALA and its advocates

must ensure that respect for patron privacy within the context of the library does not di-

minish. This concern arises given that the percentage of respondents who agreed or strongly

agreed that “Libraries should play a role in educating the general public about issues of

personal privacy” dropped from 92 percent in 2008 to 77 percent in 2012, with 18 percent

choosing the neutral “neither agree nor disagree” position. If fewer librarians and infor-

mation professionals feel that the library has an important role to play in privacy educa-

tion and awareness, there is danger that the library’s own culture of protecting privacy could

be threatened. Again, the Choose Privacy Week initiative is an appropriate forum to remind

librarians and information professionals of their historical commitment to patron privacy and

to recognize the vital role in libraries for teaching users about issues of privacy and surveillance

broadly.

The results reported in tables 7 and 18 suggest an increase in concern about particular

privacy-related issues as respondent age increases, which appears to reflect the popular be-

lief that younger people have less concern about privacy online, or at least on those particu-

lar issues expressed within the relevant questions. Reasons for this lower level of concern are

not readily evident in the data but might relate to a relative increased familiarity with on-

line technologies and related tactics to manage one’s privacy or perhaps a general lack

of experience or exposure to possible privacy threats these technologies pose, compared to

older respondents who possess more history with the potential harms of commercial and

government surveillance tactics. Despite these possible explanations, library advocates must

ensure that the privacy concerns particular to library settings and the library’s patrons are

sufficiently understood even by younger librarians and information professionals. This could

be accomplished through education and outreach targeted to MLIS programs and recent

graduates.



Library Privacy Practices


As with the general privacy attitude responses, the results focusing on library privacy prac-

tices reveal alignment between the respondents’ experiences and the broader “library eth-

ics” of minimal data retention and protection of patron privacy. Yet, the results indicate

places for improving general privacy practices within library settings. While 76 percent of

respondents feel that libraries are doing all they can to prevent unauthorized access to indi-

vidual’s personal information and circulation records, only 69 percent indicate that their li-

brary has established practices or procedures for dealing with government requests for pa-

tron information, and only 51 percent indicate that staff training is performed to handle such

requests. Library privacy advocacy groups can focus on providing training materials and

best practices to ensure that libraries are indeed “doing all they can” to protect patron

privacy.

Similarly, while nearly 80 percent of the respondents feel that libraries should play a

role in educating the general public about privacy issues and over half of the respondents

have participated in some sort of privacy-related educational activity in the past five years,

only 13 percent indicate that their library has hosted or organized privacy-related informa-

tion sessions, lectures, seminars, or other events for the general public in the past five years.

Filling this public education gap is a primary goal of the existing Choose Privacy Week ini-

tiative, which must be expanded to increase the number of participating libraries provid-

ing public programming.

Gaps in educating the public about privacy are also evident in terms of how privacy

policies are communicated to patrons. Only 57 percent of the respondents indicate that their

library communicates privacy policies to patrons, mostly through written policies provided

when a library account is created and on the library’s website. Less frequently privacy policies

are displayed in the library itself or on or near computer terminals. As reported in table 13,

there are geographic variances in the display of privacy policies about general patron data,

circulation data, and computer usage. These results suggest that efforts should be increased

in the northeastern and southern regions on the importance of communicating library pri-

vacy policies to patrons through various means and that greater training is necessary for

midwestern library professionals, where greater uncertainty was reported regarding institu-

tional methods of communicating privacy policies to patrons.

Similarly, table 14 revealed variances in the communication of privacy policies based on

the type of library, where academic libraries lagged public libraries. Across nearly all com-

binations of privacy policy and means of sharing with patrons, more than expected re-

spondents from public libraries indicated that privacy policies were shared with patrons,

while considerably fewer than expected respondents from academic libraries indicated that

the same policies were shared with their patrons. This suggests that greater efforts should

be made to ensure that librarians in academic libraries recognize that privacy concerns exist



even in these research settings and that their patrons are made sufficiently aware of the rel-


evant privacy policies and practices.

Conclusions

Future Research

Future research can build on this study in various ways. First, another general survey can be

performed in the next three years to continue the longitudinal comparison with the 2008

study and analyze the potential impact of any continuing education and outreach. Any fu-

ture surveys can also utilize probability sampling to provide more representative and gen-

eralizable results, as well as mixed-method approaches to solicit rich responses through tar-

geted interviews or focus groups. Deeper analysis of regional differences in privacy attitudes

can be explored to determine if other environmental factors ðsuch as existence of strong state

privacy laws or notable cases of government access to library records, to name twoÞ might

impact librarian attitudes.

Further, a more specific audit of privacy practices within libraries could be performed,

moving beyond simply self-reporting of privacy policy placements and related information

gathered in the current study. Such an audit could involve both survey and on-site obser-

vation and analysis of activities, including communication on privacy matters with patrons,

actual data logging and retention practices, and even measurement of instances of phys-

ical surveillance ðe.g., of security cameras or RFID scanningÞ. Future research can also

lead more directly to sets of “best practices” for libraries in terms of addressing patron pri-

vacy matters, as well as training materials for both staff and patrons, ensuring proper educa-

tion and awareness of these vital issues. Finally, this research would be greatly enhanced

with additional cross-cultural components: efforts could be made to collect data specifi-

cally from libraries that serve particular immigrant or cultural communities or from non-

American libraries to determine if they have differing attitudes or practices related to online

privacy.

Implications for Practice

Overall, the results of this study confirm that librarians and information professionals pos-

sess a concern over privacy consistent with the professional norms expressed within the “li-

brarian ethics” and that outreach and education efforts led by the ALA Office for Intellectual

Freedom are appropriate and should continue, with some additional focus on the demo-

graphic variances noted above to ensure awareness and practices are consistent across re-

gions and types of libraries. Specifically, the ALA’s annual Choose Privacy Week should be

enhanced to include not only programming and materials for enhancing patron understand-

ing of privacy issues but also new professional development content intended to ensure that

all librarians and staff are sufficiently literate of the related privacy and surveillance con-



cerns. Further, the ALA should update and expand existing patron privacy-related policy doc-


uments to ensure that best practices are being implemented.

ReferencesAcquisti, Alessandro, and Ralph Gross. 2006. “Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Shar-

ing, and Privacy on the Facebook.” Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies

4258:36–58.

American Library Association. 2002. “Privacy: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights.” http://www

.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section5interpretations&Template5/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay

.cfm&ContentID5132904.

American Library Association. 2006a. Intellectual Freedom Manual. 7th ed. Chicago: American Library As-

sociation. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0517/2005022409.html.

American Library Association. 2006b. “Library Bill of Rights.” https://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy

/intfreedom/librarybill/index.cfmhttp://www.ala.org/work/freedom/lbr.html.

American Library Association. 2012a. “Policy Concerning Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable In-

formation about Library Users.” http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section5otherpolicies&Template

5/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID513087.

American Library Association. 2012b. “Privacy and Confidentiality.” http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm

?Section5ifissues&Template5/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID525304.

American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom. 2008. “Rallying Americans to Defend Their

Rights in a Digital Age: Librarian Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Information Privacy.” http://www

.privacyrevolution.org/images/uploads/ALA_Privacy_Survey_Findings.pdf.

Buchanan, Tom, Carina Paine, Adam Joinson, and Ulf-Dietrich Reips. 2007. “Development of Measures

of Online Privacy Concern and Protection for Use on the Internet.” Journal of the American Society for

Information Science and Technology 58 ð2Þ: 157–65.Carson, Bryan. 2001. “Surveying Privacy: Library Privacy Laws in the Southeastern United States.” South-

eastern Librarian 49 ð3Þ: 19–28.Casey, Michael, and Laura Savastinuk. 2006. “Library 2.0: Service for the Next-Generation Library.” Library

Journal 131 ð14Þ: 40–42.Cranor, Lorrie, Joseph Reagle, and Mark Ackerman. 1999. “Beyond Concern: Understanding Net Users’

Attitudes about Online Privacy.” Technical Report TR 99.4.3, AT&T Labs-Research, Florham Park, NJ.

http://arxiv.org/html/cs/9904010/report.htm.

Doyle, Charles. 2003. “Libraries and the USA PATRIOT Act.” Congressional Research Service Report for

Congress, February 26.

Estabrook, Leigh S. 2002. “The Response of Public Libraries to the Events of September 11, 2001.” Illinois

Libraries 84 ð1Þ: 1–7.Foerstel, Herbert N. 1991. Surveillance in the Stacks: The FBI’s library Awareness Program. New York: Greenwood.

Foerstel, Herbert N. 2004. Refuge of a Scoundrel: The Patriot Act in Libraries. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Goldberg, Beverly. 2005. “Connecticut Library Takes on Patriot Act.” American Libraries Magazine, August 26.

http://www.americanlibrariesmagazine.org/news/08262005/connecticut-library-takes-patriot-act.

Gorman, Michael. 2000. Our Enduring Values: Librarianship in the 21st Century. Chicago: American Library As-

sociation.



Gross, Ralph, and Alessandro Acquisti. 2005. Information Revelation and Privacy in Online Social Networks.

In Proceedings from 2005 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society. Alexandria, VA: Association for


Computing Machinery.

Hoofnagle, Chris, Jennifer King, Su Li, and Jospeh Turow. 2010. “How Different Are Young Adults from

Older Adults When It Comes to Information Privacy Attitudes and Policies?” http://www.techpolicy

.com/TechnologyAcademicsPolicy/media/document-library/Hoofnagle-Turow-Sp10.pdf.

Jones, Barbara. 2009. “ ‘Librarians Shushed No More’: The USA PATRIOT Act, the ‘Connecticut Four,’

and Professional Ethics.” Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom 58 ð6Þ. https://members.ala.org/nif/v58n6/03_librarians.html.

Kennedy, Bruce. 1989. “Confidentiality of Library Records: A Survey of Problems, Policies and Laws.”

Law Library Journal 81 ð4Þ: 733–67.Kniffel, Leonard. 2008. “Delusions of Privacy.” American Libraries 39 ð8Þ: 4.Kumaraguru, Ponnurangam, and Lorrie Cranor. 2005. “Privacy Indexes: A Survey of Westin’s Studies.”

Technical Report, CMU–ISRI–5–138. School of Computer Science, Institute for Software Research In-

ternational, Carnegie Mellon University.

Litwin, Rory. 2006. “The Central Problem of Library 2.0: Privacy.” http://libraryjuicepress.com/blog/?p

568.

Malhotra, Naresh, Sung Kim, and James Agarwal. 2004. “Internet Users’ Information Privacy Concerns

ðIUIPCÞ: The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model.” Information Systems Research 15 ð4Þ: 336–55.Matz, Chris. 2008. “Libraries and the USA PATRIOT Act: Values in Conflict.” Journal of Library Administra-

tion 47 ð3–4Þ: 69–87.McFadden, Robert. 1987. “Libraries Are Asked by F.B.I. to Report on Foreign Agents.” New York Times,

September 18.

Morgan, Candace. 2006. “Intellectual Freedom: An Enduring and All-Embracing Concept.” In Intellectual

Freedom Manual. 7th ed. Edited by American Library Association, 3–13. Chicago: American Library

Association.

Murphy, Dean. 2003. “Some Librarians Use Shredder to Show Opposition to New F.B.I. Powers.” New York

Times, April 7.

Patton, Michael. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. London: Sage.

Reid, Michele. 2009. “The USA PATRIOT Act and Academic Libraries: An Overview.” College and Research

Libraries News 70 ð11Þ: 646–50.Sanchez, Rene. 2003. “Librarians Make Some Noise over Patriot Act.” Washington Post, April 10.

Solove, Daniel J. 2008. “The Future of Privacy.” American Libraries 39 ð8Þ: 56–59.Tsai, Janice, Lorrie Cranor, Alessandro Acquisti, and Christina Fong. 2006. “What’s It to You? A Survey

of Online Privacy Concerns and Risks.” Working Paper no. 06-29, NET Institute, October.

Zimmer, Michael. 2013. “Patron Privacy in the ‘2.0’ Era: Avoiding the Faustian Bargain of Library 2.0.”

Journal of Information Ethics 22 ð1Þ: 44–59.

Michael Zimmer: assistant professor in the School of Information Studies at the University of

Wisconsin–Milwaukee and director of the Center for Information Policy Research. With a back-

ground in new media and Internet studies, the philosophy of technology, and information policy



and ethics, Zimmer focuses in his research on the ethical dimensions of new media and informa-

tion technologies, with particular interest in privacy, social media, Internet research ethics, and


values-in-design. Recent research has focused on the ethical dimensions of the Google Books proj-

ect, the privacy implications of Library 2.0, and privacy attitudes and practices of librarians and in-

formation professionals. E-mail: [email protected].



Zimmer-Information and Internet Policy

Documents

Transcript of Zimmer-Information and Internet Policy