Heilman 1

A Holistic Approach to Privacy in the Library: from Patron Confidentiality to Authority Work

Claire Heilman

Dominican University
 Heilman 2

Introduction

The third principle in the American Library Association’s (ALA) Code of Ethics states,

“We protect each library user’s right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information

sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted” (“Professional

Ethics”). While this statement acts as a framework to help librarians guide their decision making,

it has taken on a new meaning within the digital age of information and linked data. Circulation

records of patrons are no longer the only things that need protecting, now one must consider the

full scope of implications that comes with the shift to a more digitized library system. From

protecting patrons’ identities from the onslaught of potential data breaches to considering what

information to put within a MAchine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) records in order to protect the

privacy of content creators, the considerations needed for privacy are heightened now more than

ever. While privacy within the library will never be perfect, librarians must constantly reconstruct

their ideas of what privacy means and encompasses in order to ensure that privacy, as an ethic, is

upheld in a holistic manner that prioritizes both the library’s patrons as well as the people who

appear within catalog records.

Review of Literature

The History of Privacy

The right to privacy has existed in the library since the 1939 implementation of the

original Code of Ethics (Marden and Cram 40). Since the adoption of the code, libraries have

worked to protect patron privacy. However, it was not until the 1980s that the protection of

library records was reflected in state laws. Currently, 48 states as well as the District of

Columbia have laws relating to privacy within the library, but it remains that there are no federal

laws protecting the privacy of library records (“State Privacy Laws”).

 Heilman 3

One contributing factor for the push of protections for libraries began due to the

longstanding threats to patron privacy made by federal agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (Magi

15-18). The FBI launched a targeted initiative called the Library Awareness Program in the

1970s (Bowers 379). This program investigated the reading and searching habits of library

patrons who were considered to be security risks by the FBI. The main target of the program,

people from the Soviet Union, may come as no surprise due to the implementation of the

program during the Cold War era (“Cold War”). In an attempt to gain patron records, FBI agents

would flash their badges to library staff and refer to national security as a way to coerce them

into disclosing patron records. In one attempt to discover information, an FBI agent asked a

librarian if they recalled any people with “foreign sounding names” who frequented the library or

asked for database searches (FBI Counterintelligence Visits 84).

Another notable governmental threat to privacy in library records came a mere six weeks

after September 11, 2001. Passed in October of 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act had a few sections

in it that were cause for concern for library professionals. The first is Section 215, which

expanded the authority of the FBI to apply for a court order to gain access to “any tangible thing”

if it was thought to be in connection with an investigation against terrorism. Additionally, within

this section is a gag order that would prevent the library from disclosing if they had received a

court order to release patron records and made it so that the people who were under investigation

did not know that they were (Bowers 380-381; Magi 19). The second is Section 216, which

expanded monitoring laws to include internet activity. This would directly impact libraries as the

ability for federal agencies to obtain activity logs from computers housed at public libraries was

drastically expanded (Magi 19). The third is Section 218, which amended provisions of the
 Heilman 4

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 (Bowers 380; “The Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act”). The new amendments made it easier for federal agents to conduct

surveillance and gain access to library records by lowering the standard of entry for conducting

investigations on a certain person. The new amendment requirements moved from a “primary

purpose” in foreign intelligence gathering to a “significant purpose” (Bower 381; “USA

PATRIOT Act Amendments”).

Upholding standards for privacy within the library are crucial in ensuring that library

users maintain the right to intellectual freedom. If a user begins to fear that their internet searches

or circulation records are disclosed when there is not a substantiated reason for it, they will no

longer feel that they have the ability to freely conduct searches that meet their information needs.

Paul Pedley refers to this as the phenomenon known as the “Chilling Effect”, where people

change their behaviors when they believe that they are being monitored (10-11). While national

security should be considered a legitimate reason to turn over patron records, it must not come

out of a place of fear. As history shows, this only leads to misidentification and bias towards

marginalized groups.

Privacy in Authority Records

The use of the phrase "library user" in the Code of Ethics excludes the need to protect the

privacy of content creators whose personal data is collected and stored within authority records.

The idea of privacy in the 21st century must evolve to encompass large amounts of personal

information that is collected both knowingly and unknowingly. One way in which data on a

person is created and stored in the library is through name authority records (NAR) in cataloging.

The information stored in NARs has the potential to infringe on the privacy rights of the person
 Heilman 5

whose data is recorded due to the public nature of the record, as well as the way in which

authority records are copied and reused in cataloging practices.

Interviews conducted by Fox and Swickard asked zine makers and artists about their

identities and privacy concerns regarding NARs. Of those interviewed, one of the respondents

stated that they used a pseudonym to identify their work due to concerns about safety as they

self-identified as a queer woman with chronic mental illness and a history of domestic abuse (13-

14). Guidelines from Resource Description & Access (RDA) 9.2.2.8 state, “If an individual uses

only one pseudonym and does not use his or her real names as a creator or contributor, choose

the pseudonym as a preferred name for person. Record the individual’s real name as a variant

name for person”. In following this guideline and recording a content creator’s “real name” as a

variant, the cataloger removes a level of privacy for creators who wish to not have their name

directly associated with their works. Moreover, the best practice for NARs, according to Library

of Congress’s Name Authority Cooperative Program (NACO), is to include as much information

as possible (Billey et al. 413). In the aforementioned example, adhering to these guidelines

would violate the privacy of the author by exposing their “real name” as a variant name entry,

and potentially risk their personal well-being and safety through an accidental outing.

NARs can also hold ethical ramifications regarding content creators who identify as

being transgender. If a cataloger must uphold the standards set by RDA and NACO, they are

required to find and add variant names and additional information on a content creator in order to

enhance the data stored within the catalog. This addition of information can help redirect a

search when it is conducted using an outdated name (Thompson 140). However, when adding

variant names, one must consider if it is ethical to do so or if adding this information violates a

person's privacy and puts them at an unnecessary risk. Amber Billey states, “If we record that a
 Heilman 6

person is transgender, this could have serious implication for their safety, particularly in

countries where being transgender is illegal (11)”.

An example drawn upon in Kelly Thompson’s analysis of NARs for people who self-

identify as transgender is the record for Ivan E. Coyote. Within Coyote’s record there are two

qualifiers used: subfield $q to add a fuller form of their name (this added their name assigned at

birth), and subfield $d, for dates associated with a name. Subfield $d is most commonly used

when there are multiple authority files for people with the same name. In the case of Coyote,

there is no other authority record for someone with the same name. Therefore, this additional

subfield is not necessary (141). Thompson goes on to state that:

“For this NAR [Name Authority Record], the level of differentiation used is not needed

under any of the given guidelines. Coyote has published all of their works under the name

Ivan E. Coyote, and has never published under their name assigned at birth…inclusion of

this extra name information is not respectful of the author’s privacy, their self-

identification, or bibliographic identity” (141-142).

Use of deadnames within authority records violates the right to privacy and confidentiality of

content creators, especially when they have created works only using their preferred name. If a

library is to uphold ALA’s Code of Ethics relating to issues of privacy, they must also consider

the privacy of those that appear within the library’s catalog.

These best practices and guidelines set by NACO and RDA have been cause for

controversy within the cataloging community. Thompson argues that “when outing information

is shared by someone else, it is unethical unless you are certain the person it is about has shared

this information publicly with the intent of others knowing it” (141). In a perfect world, the

person developing or editing a NAR could ask for consent from the person whose information is
 Heilman 7

being recorded as to what they approve of adding in an attempt to preserve their privacy (Amey

358; Thompson 152). Indubitably, asking for consent would add additional work for the

cataloger and many people may not respond to the inquiry. However, through obtaining consent,

catalogers would ensure that they are upholding ethical privacy standards that protect content

creators; a concept that is especially important in the era of linked data, as people may not be

aware of the extent to which data is reused (Billey 11; Amey 358).

Optional Information

As previously stated, NACO asks catalogers to add as much information as possible to

records. While this can help strengthen the retrieval and searching capabilities of the catalog, it

can come with the added cost of potential infringement of privacy. In 2014 Billey et al. wrote

about the controversy surrounding RDA 9.7 and the optional use of MARC field 375 for

ascribing gender. At the time of their writing, catalogers using Library of Congress Classification

could choose to include the gender of a content creator when creating their authority record using

the controlled vocabulary male, female, or not known (416). Inclusion of this information can

indeed enhance the systems' ability to produce results based on certain search criteria. For

example, if one wanted to search for books by female authors, inclusion of gender in authority

record would help the system retrieve works at that level (Billey et al. 417). However, the

addition of optional information in records is inconsistently applied across catalogs because of

the novelty of the additional elements that can be added in MARC 3XX fields, which makes the

results of such searches not fully accurate or exhaustive (Billey 11-12). Additionally, for the case

of the optional 375 field, adding gender to an authority record asks catalogers to determine the

gender of someone based on the information that they have in hand. If we draw on the example

of Ivan E. Coyote, which gender would Coyote be assigned to based on LC’s controlled
 Heilman 8

vocabulary? Is the cataloger able to accurately apply gender pronouns to this author that align

with the author’s self-expression? Could an inclusion of gender lead to an accidental outing

thereby disregarding the author’s right to privacy?

As a result of the critique of RDA 9.7 by Billey et al., the controversy that ensued, and a

Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) task force created to address this issue (Haugen and

Billey 385), RDA 9.7.1.3 now states “Record a gender of the person, using an appropriate term

in a language preferred by the agency creating the data. Select a term from a standard list, if

available. Record a gender as a separate element. Gender is not recorded as part of an access

point”. While this change may seem small, it is the result of catalogers collectively coming

together to ask why a particular field is important and what ramifications it can have on the

people whose data is recorded. While the example of the inclusion of field 375 holds other

ethical issues such as diversity and inclusion in authority records, at its root, it also questions if

the information collected and recorded is necessary or if it breaches a sense of privacy for people

whose names are reflected in authority records. To ensure the privacy of content creators, Billey

suggests that catalogers should keep their records simple by focusing on the name of the entity

(content creator), their associated works, lifespan dates if they are publicly available, occupation,

and their association with the work that is being cataloged (13).

Conclusion

Privacy has historically been a complex issue that asks libraries and their staff to be its

keepers and advocates. It is apparent that librarians and catalogers must respond to the call to

action in the continued need to uphold privacy while expanding the scope of who is included

under the umbrella of this principle. Privacy, as an ethic, must be looked at holistically. Keeping

both patron privacy and data privacy for content creators in mind as all people associated with
 Heilman 9

the library— whether as a user or as someone whose name appears within a catalog—have the

right to an assurance of privacy. Due to the ongoing use of linked data, one must consider if the

data collected for use in authority records has a relevant need and if it will enhance search results

for patrons. As a starting point, Thompson states that a few good questions to ask are “Is there

potential for this information to harm the author through outing or violating the right to privacy?

Is there an indication that the author consents to having this information shared publicly? Will

including this information help a library user in the search process” (152)? If one asks these

questions and feels that including additional information in a record will be to the benefit of all

associated, then the information should be included. If it is data collection for the sake of

information, catalogers must continue to push back against the need for optional MARC fields to

be included within records for the sake of privacy. Once data is created, it can easily be

disseminated and utilized to the detriment of the person it is about.

 Heilman 10

Bibliography

Amey, Catherine. “Names in Aotearoa: A Personal Reflection on the National Library of New
Zealand [Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa’s] Experiences with the NACO and SACO
Programs.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, vol. 58, no. 3-4, Routledge, 2020, pp.
351–60, https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2019.1707337.
Billey, Amber. “Just Because We Can, Doesn’t Mean We Should: An Argument for Simplicity
and Data Privacy With Name Authority Work in the Linked Data Environment.” Journal
of Library Metadata, vol. 19, no. 1-2, Routledge, 2019, pp. 1–17,
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2019.1589684.

Billey, Amber, et al. “What’s Gender Got to Do with It? A Critique of RDA 9.7.” Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, vol. 52, no. 4, Routledge, 2014, pp. 412–21,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2014.882465.

Bowers, Stacey L. “Privacy and Library Records.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship, vol.
32, no. 4, Elsevier Inc, 2006, pp. 377–83, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2006.03.005.

“Cold War.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.,

www.britannica.com/event/Cold-War.

Fox, Violet B., and Kelly Swickard. “‘My Zine Life Is My Private Life’: Reframing Authority
Control from Detective Work to an Ethic of Care.” Ethical Questions in Name Authority
Control, Library Juice Press, Sacramento, CA, 2019.
Haugen, Matthew, and Amber Billey. “Building a More Diverse and Inclusive Cataloging
Cooperative.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, vol. 58, no. 3-4, Routledge, 2020,
pp. 382–96, https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2020.1717709.

Magi, Trina J. Protecting "Our Precious Liberties": What Every Educator Needs to Know about
Libraries, Privacy, and Freedom of Inquiry. Phi Delta Kappa International, 2005.

Marden, Bill, and Greg Cram. “Privacy in Public Libraries.” Research Library Issues, no. 297,
Jan. 2019, pp. 38–46. EBSCOhost, doi:10.29242/rli.297.4.

Pedley, Paul. A Practical Guide to Privacy in Libraries. Facet Publishing, 2020.

“Professional Ethics.” Tools, Publications & Resources, American Library Association, 21 July
2021, www.ala.org/tools/ethics.

“State Privacy Laws Regarding Library Records.” Advocacy, Legislation & Issues, American
Library Association, 10 Nov. 2021, www.ala.org/advocacy/privacy/statelaws.
 Heilman 11

“The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).” Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Department of Justice , bja.ojp.gov/program/it/privacy-civil-
liberties/authorities/statutes/1286.

Thompson, Kelly J. “More Than a Name: A Content Analysis of Name Authority Records for
Authors Who Self-Identify as Trans.” Library Resources & Technical Services, vol. 60,
no. 3, American Library Association, 2016, pp. 140–55,
https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.60n3.140.

RDA Section 9.7.1.3 Recoding Gender

RDA. Section 9.2.2.8 Individuals with More Than One Identity

“USA PATRIOT Act Amendments to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Authorities.” FBI,
FBI, 27 Apr. 2005, archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/usa-patriot-act-amendments-
to-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act-authorities.

United States, Congress, Cong. House, Committee on the Judiciary. FBI Counterintelligence
Visits to Libraries: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights
of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundredth Congress,
Second Session, June 20 and July 13, 1988, U.S. G.P.O., 1989, pp. 2–414. 100th Congress,
2nd session, document. ERIC, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED318475.