Re: privacy@wiley.com

[David Goodman <dgoodman@princeton.edu>]

I think this reply misses the real point of why personal identification is
not acceptable. It's not just a question of the publisher using the
information for advertising, or even of the publisher potentially
re-selling the information for others to use for advertising--and I know
Wiley has certainly said they will never do that.

The fundamental problem as I see it is that the information is not secure
against legal process. Most libraries have decided that their patrons have
the right for their library use to be totally private, and therefore do
not retain circulation information; indeed, in most states they are by law
not even permitted to do so. This should apply even more to use of
material within the library, as in reading a journal (print or
electronic). This is relevant not only to the (I hope) remote possibility
of government interference, but also to matters involving, for example,
patents: the possibility of subpoena in civil litigation exists for any
commercially relevant field. I think we are all aware by now that the only
reliable way to protect this information is to not collect it in the first
place.

Looking at it another way, I question whether we can justifiably evade
this problem by supplying the publisher with incorrect information, or for
advising our patrons to do so. Some contracts specifically prohibit the
use of pseudonyms, and in any case I am a little uncomfortable with this,
especially when there are more straightforward solutions.

All this is my *personal* view only, though I suspect some of my colleagues
here agree.

David Goodman
Biology Librarian, Princeton University Library
dgoodman@princeton.edu         http://www.princeton.edu/~biolib/
phone: 609-258-3235            fax: 609-258-2627


________________________

Alan Edelson wrote:

> I have read through Wiley's User Terms of Service Agreement and
> questionnaire, and, while I personally dislike filling out such forms, I
> find nothing unusually  invasive about the questions, except that you
> may be quite certain that you will be on their computerized mailing
> lists to receive promotional literature in the areas of interest you
> have indicated. The information requested is no more extensive, and in
> many ways less extensive, than that which is routinely asked of us by
> manufacturers of computer hardware, cameras, television sets, credit
> card companies, and so forth, so that they understand the demographics
> of their market---and so that they can, if they choose, sell this
> information to mailing list brokers. Failure to fill out the forms to
> some extent may mean failure to validate a warranty or to receive credit
> card approval.  Which is why I use a post office box address for all
> such questionnaires, and my home address for more personal mail. Once a
> fortnight I stop by my post office box to empty the mound of junk mail
> into a nearby waste basket. It's part of being immersed in a
> consumer-driven economy.  And by the way, you are not under oath when
> filling out such forms, and you can become creative when asked truly
> inappropriate questions.
> 
> Alan M. Edelson, Ph.D.
> 
> Jane Holmquist wrote:
> 
> > In response to a recent e-mail message, we have just taken
> > another look at the User Terms of Service Agreement for
> > Wiley Interscience e-journals at  http://www.interscience.wiley.com/
> >
> > Is anyone else concerned about about their 'Privacy and
> > Data Protection Policy' and requirement that all users provide
> > certain personal information in order to use their e-journals?
> >
> > There is a note that Wiley's privacy and data protection policy
> > is reviewed periodically, and any comments or questions can be
> > sent to privacy@wiley.com.
> >
> > Should we as librarians speak up on behalf of our users?
> >
> > Jane Holmquist and David Goodman, co-chairs
> > Electronic Journals Task Force
> > Princeton University Library