ALA has a recommendation for the antitrust division of the DOJ
PDF, 1.4 megs; July 29, 2009
Citizen comment on Google and antitrust
Google Watch, July 3, 2009
American Library Association doesn't
like Google as much as they used to
May 4, 2009
One of the ALA's objections is that the Settlement says nothing about reader privacy: "Privacy is one of libraries' core values; libraries do not monitor the reading habits of their patrons. Indeed, 48 states and the District of Columbia have statutes that protect library records from undue intrusion at the expense of privacy, requiring in general a subpoena before a publicly funded library can disclose records with personally identifiable information."
The ALA's comments filed with the court conclude that "any user must have the ability to request this Court to direct Google and the Registry to disclose their policies for collecting, retaining, disseminating, and protecting personally identifiable information. Additionally, any user must have the ability to request this Court to review whether Google and the Registry are complying with their privacy policies."
Read the ALA document here
(PDF file, 255 Kbytes, 22 pages)
Why did it take so long for the ALA to recognize that Google threatens the privacy protections that the ALA has always supported? After all, Google-Watch tried to raise this issue with the ALA in December 2004, as soon as Google announced the Library Project. Nothing was heard from the ALA about Google and privacy for four long years.
One reason for this is that Google launched an aggressive library outreach program in 2005 and seduced the ALA with corporate gimmickry. Google loved librarians, so librarians returned the favor. The ALA was susceptible to this because it is a huge bureaucratic membership organization, and many in the profession felt outdated and threatened by the digital revolution.
If the ALA had taken a hard look at Google as soon as the Library Project was announced, and educated its membership about the privacy issues, then by 2009 it would have been ready to oppose the Settlement outright. Instead, the ALA's comments on the Settlement include this pathetic line: "The Library Associations do not oppose approval of the Settlement." By now this ALA document may be too little, too late. Almost certainly it would have been if the court hadn't postponed the issue for four additional months, and if the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission hadn't started looking at antitrust and privacy issues concerning Google. In the meantime, the ALA should consider submitting stronger statements with these two agencies within the next four months, to expiate its sins of omission during the past four years.
home page