Third-Party Tracking in Online Public Library Environments in the United States and Canada: A Statistical Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of:Gardner, G. J. (2021). Aiding and abetting: Third-party tracking and (in)secure connections in public libraries. The Serials Librarian, 81(1), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2021.1943105 Objective – To determine through statistical data collection the frequency of tracking by third parties in online public library environments along with the visibility and ease of discovery of online library policies and disclosures related to third-party tracking in particular and data privacy in general. Design – Online evaluation of public library websites. Setting – English-language public libraries in the United States and Canada. Subjects – 178 public library websites (133 in the United States and 45 in Canada). The libraries included in the study were intentionally selected for their membership in either the Canadian Urban Libraries Council (CULC) or the Urban Libraries Council (ULC) in the Unites States, since these libraries have some of the largest systems membership serving predominantly urban and suburban communities in both countries. The included Canadian libraries serve nearly 41% of the population in that country while the included libraries in the United States are positioned to serve 28% percent of the total population. The author notes that “These percentage figures serve as hypothetical, upper-bound estimates of the population affected by third-party tracking since not every member of these communities actually uses their local public library” (Gardner, 2021, p.72). Methods – In addition to evaluating the public library catalog and website in general with regards to third-party tracking and data privacy, 10 common content sources (databases) available at all of the included libraries were also included in the examination. Two browser add-ons designed to detect third-party tracking, Ghostery and Disconnect, were used in the study due to their popularity and incorporation into previous similar studies. In addition to third-party tracking the author executed word searches on library homepages using Ctrl-F for words commonly used to denote privacy or terms of use statements. No qualitative analysis was performed to determine if information shared regarding third-party tracking was accurate, and subpages were not examined. The data collection period lasted a total of three months beginning in March 2017 and running through May 2017. Main Results – The data gathered between March and May of 2017 clearly indicates a general disregard among most sampled public libraries regarding the protection of patron data gathered by third-party tracking. Of Canadian libraries included in the sample 89% (40) enabled third-party tracking, while libraries in the United States allowed it at a rate of 87% (116). Both Ghostery and Disconnect revealed an almost identical number of incidences of third-party tracking in library catalogs and in the 10 popular public library databases examined in the study. Certain OPACS were associated with higher tracking counts as were certain library databases. Libraries were found to be lax when it came to providing a link on the homepage potentially informing users of the presence of third-party tracking. Of the 156 total libraries with third-party tracking in their online catalogs, 69 (44%) included a homepage link while the rest did not. The author notes that the presence of a link was all that was examined, and not specific language used to disclose the level of third-party tracking or data privacy. In total, 8 of the 10 common content sources allowed third-party tracking. All 10 provided a link to either privacy or terms of service statements on their landing pages. Conclusion – Although patron privacy is an issue addressed in the American Library Association (ALA) Code of Ethics (American Library Association, 2021), the author concludes that “Together with previous research on usage of privacy-enhancing tools in public libraries, these results suggest that public libraries are accessories to third-party tracking on a large scale” (Gardner, 2021, p.69).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,110 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».