Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

Data privacy in library authority files: a survey

171 visualizaciones

Publicado el

Presentación realizada por Ricardo Santos, miembro del VIAF GDPR Working Group, en la reunión anual de VIAF. La presentación muestra los resultados de una encuesta sobre privacidad de datos de autores en ficheros de autoridad.

Publicado en: Tecnología
  • Sé el primero en comentar

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

Data privacy in library authority files: a survey

  1. 1. Results have been analyzed in two groups: national or national-like libraries or agencies: Agencies like the Danish Bibliographic Agency, Nukat or ICCU. Other nominally non-national libraries have been included here: Library of Congress, Nat. Lib of Medicine, Library of Catalonia Non-european National libraries: Chile, Australia, Israel, Korea, Canada Others: mainly NACO participants (so, in VIAF through NACO funnel), also others: university libraries, Project Managemente Institut, public libraries One respondent decided not to identify.
  2. 2. For all the slides. “Others” answers have been adjusted to the pre-established answers as possible. Every slide will present a selection of the “Other” answers more relevant. Others: Depend on what the author asks, by default, only the heading. No policy on that. Explain the author its use, ask for other means of disambiguations if needed
  3. 3. Selection of “Others” answers: These data are not included. Data is removed from heading or attribute fields (MARC 3XX), but kept in note fields (MARC 670). Only if data can cause damage or discrimination. Depends on whether this data in publicly available elsewhere. Never happened
  4. 4. Most: request only accepted if there is an actual error, others claims are rejected (not by legal obligation, especifically) Some never received such a request.
  5. 5. Most comments (from other libs): never happened, or depending on how public the relation has become.
  6. 6. Claims rejected, in national libraries, out of legal obligation. Others rejected because of needs for authority control, or for catalog functioning (any AAP request an authority) In this case, and others all along the survey, non-national libraries have far fewer cases of authors complaining about privacy issues.
  7. 7. One library (BL) has a legal disclaimer when asking for data to authors or publishers Respondents who does not have their auth info accessible declined to answer.
  8. 8. GDPR mandates European institutions to have a DPO.
  9. 9. Some libraries have both a cat/auth mailbox, authority mailbox, and/or data privacy mailbox. They have been counted as one ocurrency for each mailbox. It’s understood that all libraries have or may have a general mailbox. Here, the ocurrencies of General are understood as the only mailbox.
  10. 10. University or general public libraries are not so familiar with users asking for the deletion of data. Maybe also users are more prone to make these types of claims with libraries regarded as “official” or higher in an administrative hierarchy. The “red lines” ussually means invoking the “legal obligation” exception.