There’s a good read about a few oligopolistic publishers that proposed unethical surveillance technologies for academic libraries. I thought that the original article, while addressing a lot and from a variety of people, was missing some perspective from librarians on the subject. I wrote some points about this third-party potential for breaching confidentiality in a library and an ethical approach from librarians on my other blog.
Publishers Proposing Surveillance Tech on Libraries
Gautama Mehta’s recent article “Proposal to install spyware in university libraries to protect copyrights shocks academics” is an important read. I appreciate the many issues it raises and the great links to additional commentary about Elsevier’s and Springer’s problematic Scholarly Networks Security Initiative (SNSI).
Although the article mentions digital rights advocates and scientists, I did not see much written about the fact that librarians are not passive recipients of technology in their libraries.
Continue reading “Publishers Proposing Surveillance Tech on Libraries”Proctorio Legal Aggression
A Learning Technology Specialist at UBC was rightly critical of Proctorio so the company is suing him. Considering the ethical, technical or other transgressions of automated test proctoring/surveillance tools like Proctorio, it’s worth thinking about how this situation is unfolding. He’s set up a GoFundMe campaign for some support and if successful, proceeds would go to the BC Civil Liberties Association.
There’s a good blog post, In Defence of Ian Linkletter, which explains the situation.
I think it’s worth noting, in Linkletter’s message about the suit, he explains: “This kind of lawsuit, in which a company like Proctorio sues an outspoken critic like me, is sometimes referred to as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation: or “SLAPP”. SLAPP lawsuits are a threat to freedom of expression.” [emphasis mine]