“Hey Jeroen, I’m connecting you with Luke Swarthout from NYPL! He has some questions about strategies for libraires with regards to privacy – would you be willing to share your thoughts? ”
Ilona Kish, director of Public Libraries 2030, recently sent me this e-mail. The conversation with Luke (director of Digital Policy, New York Public Library) was a moment of two minds thinking as one. The topic of discussion was the imbalance between the broad use of technology in libraries and safeguarding library users’ privacy. Ilona’s idea was that we could find each other in that. And that was right.
You are no longer what you read
The image that libraries stand firm for the privacy protection of their users stems from the analogous past. Luke outlined that at that time it was up to the librarian to prevent patron’s preferences and lending history from becoming public. Call it professional confidentiality. The lack of a system in which personal data was stored made it easy to ensure the sovereignty of patrons.
The image of a safe haven for our patrons is one that we still happily propagate. But it is no longer that simple. With the use of digital library systems, the use of browsers and other software from major US tech companies on public PC’s and the use of social media for online marketing, we have lost control. Whereas at the time you kept the reading preferences and lending history private at all times, today they are only the tip of the iceberg. And if you are not careful, as a library you may also help to make that data accessible.
Compared to American libraries, Dutch libraries are doing relatively well. Most library websites don’t have trackers installed by vague ad companies, but the use of Google Analytics is common. The responsibility to prevent personal information from reaching Google lies with the website owners (hello privacy policy and cookie notice), but it is unclear what happens with data that is unprotected and shared unexpectedly.
Even then, however, it is now known that the power of data collection does not lie in unique incidental personal data, but in combining small pieces of scattered information. As a library with the best intentions you might still be anonymizing lending data and personal details, but the profiling throught online tracking paints a much more detailed picture. And as a well-meaning librarian you are powerless, because the management of that data is not up to you.
Privacy paradox
Within the digital citizenship program for Dutch public libraries the aim is to promote critical awareness for all target groups. This obliges libraries to also ask critical questions to themselves and to each other. Current affairs last week showed that this is happening far too little (yes, I believe that the case of libraries normalizing to collaborate with Google is also questionable). In libraries the decision making for digital application is still mainly determined by costs and ease of use.
However, you might expect more from a public institution such as a library. Despite the increased use of technology and the challenges that this presents, we still adhere to the principle that we stand for the privacy of our patrons. In a sense this is paradoxical, all the more so if you do pay attention to programming around privacy, but do not always make defensible choices at an institutional level (the systems we use). Wouldn’t libraries much rather use a non-Googe statistics application? Are the trackers blocked by default on public computers? And is there at least a choice of different (privacy-friendly) web browsers? I would like to see the description as propagated by the Dutch Public Stack coalition applied in public libraries:
“In the Public Stack, we see the “user” as a citizen in a democratic society – not as a consumer in a business model or as a subject of a state. The other layers of Public Stack all play a role in shaping this relationship, which determines whose interests are served by technology.”
What’s next?
In order to simplify the discussion about the privacy paradox and to put it more broadly on the agenda, we were also able to help each other. For example, I was able to refer Luke to the Public Stack principle and their practical and idea recommendations. We agreed to make another online appointment in a few weeks. I see a knowledge session on the privacy paradox on the near horizon!
Wat heeft gratis schijfruimte bij Dropbox te maken met een kunstproject in het basisonderwijs? Wanneer het enigszins cryptische antwoord daarop luidt: ‘het inzetten van je netwerk, want gratis bestaat niet’ zou je misschien je wenkbrauwen fronsen. Ik ga straks wat verder in op het verband tussen een techbedrijf en een kunstactiviteit voor kinderen. Ik wil namelijk eerst uitleggen waarom digitaal burgerschap, het onderwerp van dit blog, momenteel hoog op de agenda van bibliotheken staat.
Wellicht hoorde je al over de programmalijn digitaal burgerschap, waarbij de KB, SPN en de bibliotheken nauw met elkaar samenwerken. De eerste vraag die vaak gesteld wordt is wat het begrip nu eigenlijk precies inhoudt. Een honderd procent kloppende definitie is er nog niet, maar vanuit het perspectief van bibliotheken is het in staat stellen van burgers om actief en kritisch deel te nemen aan de digitaliserende samenleving eentje die heel dicht bij de essentie komt. In tegenstelling tot programma’s voor digitale inclusie (gericht op burgers die vanwege allerlei redenen niet kunnen meekomen), of digitale geletterdheid (in bibliotheekland meestal geframed in relatie tot het onderwijs), betreft digitaal burgerschap álle burgers: van niet-zelfredzame jeugd tot zelfredzame volwassenen en alles wat daartussenin zit.
Paradox
Nederland scoort steevast het hoogst als het gaat om de beschikbaarheid van breedband en allerlei andere internetgerelateerde zaken. Tegelijkertijd is er paradoxaal genoeg sprake van een steeds grotere kloof tussen burgers die zich prima weten te redden in die digitaliserende samenleving en burgers voor wie dat steeds lastiger wordt. “We updaten onze technologie, maar vergeten de samenleving te updaten”, schetst het Rathenau Instituut treffend. Een klassieke reactie om die laatste groep te laten ‘meedoen’ is het investeren in apparatuur om toegang tot het internet en digitale diensten mogelijk te maken. Dat zie je bijvoorbeeld in het beschikbaar stellen van hardware voor kinderen die tijdens de pandemie onderwijs op afstand moeten volgen. Deze goedbedoelde inzamelacties lossen het probleem echter niet op. Net zoals het geven van alleen een pen kinderen geen schrijvers maakt, geldt dat het doneren van een tablet hen geen inzicht geeft in de mogelijkheden die de apparatuur hen biedt, laat staan dat zij de machinaties van de online wereld leren te doorzien.
Juist dat laatste is waarin de grootste uitdaging schuilt. Wat het volwaardig online kunnen meedoen namelijk nog wat lastiger maakt is dat in die wereld allerlei krachten spelen die vaak onzichtbaar zijn, of bewust worden overgoten met een sausje om het allemaal net wat mooier, kloppender, spannender of leuker te laten zijn. Hans Schnitzler parafraserend wordt de lens waardoor je online de wereld bekijkt mede bepaald door techbedrijven. Dit leidt ertoe dat echt begrijpen wat er speelt, en vervolgens kunnen bepalen wat jouw keuzes zijn, daarmee wel heel erg moeilijk wordt gemaakt. Daarmee raakt de essentie van digitaal burgerschap veel grotere thema’s dan digitalisering alleen en gaat het uiteindelijk over democratie en de wijze waarop we met elkaar omgaan. Om daarin volwaardig te kunnen participeren is knoppenkunde ontoereikend, maar zijn complexe digitale vaardigheden nodig.
E-mailadressen voor museumopening
Kortgeleden leerde ik dat deze uitdagingen letterlijk en figuurlijk met kleuters je huis kunnen binnenlopen. Tijdens een bezoek aan goede vrienden Sanne en Peter vertelden zij over het project De Kunstweken, waaraan de school van hun kinderen meedeed. Schoolbreed, van kleuters tot groep 8-ers, maakten leerlingen kennis met bekende kunstenaars en werden zij uitgedaagd om in de stijl van die meester, begeleid door een kunstenaar in de klas, een eigen kunstwerk te maken.
“Jullie moeten een museum openen, want Stijn heeft al zeven en ik nog niks” was de wat cryptische mededeling waarmee hun zoontje Dylan onlangs thuiskwam. Naast de fysieke lessen en activiteiten op school kent het project namelijk ook een online gedeelte. Slechts een tipje van de sluier wordt opgelicht middels een gepersonaliseerde glossy folder die de kinderen mee naar huis namen. Daarop is het kunstwerk dat zij op school maakten grotendeels achter een doek verborgen. Nog even geduld dus.
Om het volwaardige werk te zien werden ouders naar een online museum geleid. Vol verwachting probeerden Sanne en Peter de deur daarvan te openen, maar opnieuw werd de onthulling uitgesteld. Na aanmelding ontvingen ze namelijk een e-mail met de melding dat het persoonlijke museum pas geopend werd nadat eerst nog minimaal drie e-mailadressen van vrienden of familie verzameld werden. Immers, hoe meer zielen hoe meer vreugd. Voor zowel Sanne en Peter als de aangedragen contacten gold dat ze ook e-mails ontvingen die hen moesten verleiden om producten aan te schaffen met het kunstwerk erop geprint. Bij minimaal acht aangeschafte producten krijgt Dylan als beloning een cadeau. Hetzelfde principe dus als bij het aanleveren van contacten die een account bij Dropbox of een vergelijkbare online dienst nemen. Hoe meer klanten je aanlevert, des te meer gratis opslagruimte voor jou. Het is een model dat naar alle waarschijnlijkheid oeroud is, maar groot geworden in het digitale domein. Met de spreekwoordelijke druk op de Entertoets levert jouw persoonlijke netwerk voor jou mooie voordeeltjes op.
‘Maak van je museum een succes.. Maak kans op een iPad!’
Om het allemaal nog wat verleidelijker te maken vergroot elke aanschaf (prints van het kunstwerk van Dylan op mokken, broodtrommels en ga zo maar door) van die contacten de mogelijkheid om één van vijf beschikbare iPads te winnen. Hoe beter je dus in staat bent om jouw persoonlijke netwerk te mobiliseren, hoe groter de kans om er eentje in de wacht te slepen. Dat de druk om deze adressen te verzamelen nog eens verhoogd wordt, doordat pas ná het openen van het persoonlijke museum het werk ook opgenomen werd in de gezamenlijke schoolgalerie, lijkt haast bijzaak, maar is natuurlijk uitermate ongewenst. Wat betekent dit voor de kinderen wiens ouders hiertoe niet in staat zijn? De kloof tussen voorlopers en achterblijvers wordt in ieder geval groter.
Eén en ander leidde ertoe dat er in de klas van de kinderen van Sanne en Peter (we hebben het over groepen 1 en 2) al snel een rat race ontstond. “Wie heeft de meeste bezoekers?” Dat werd nog eens aangewakkerd, omdat op de website per individueel kunstwerk te zien is hoeveel aangemelde bezoekers er al zijn. Ook het eerder genoemde aanbod dat kinderen hun kunstwerk konden laten drukken op allerlei soorten merchandise leidde al snel tot verwachtingen en groepsdruk: wat doe je als ouders immers als de hele klas een gepersonaliseerde broodtrommel heeft en Dylan niet? Wat als je niet in staat bent een online betaling te doen? Wat als je de vaardigheden niet hebt om jouw persoonlijke netwerk in te zetten om voldoende e-mailadressen te bemachtigen? Wat als je thuis verstoken bent van een computer of tablet? Wat als je gewoon niet begrijpt hoe deze mechanismes werken?
Welke 21e-eeuwse vaardigheden?
Over de digitale vaardigheden van kinderen van deze leeftijd kan je eenzelfde boom opzetten. Dat het uiteindelijk voor De Kunstweken vooral te doen is om het behalen van zoveel mogelijk transacties (het project wordt ermee gefinancierd, maar is daardoor ‘gratis’) zal hen volledig ontgaan. Resultaat is dat onze vrienden zich min of meer verplicht voelen een broodtrommel met kunstwerk aan te schaffen. Daarnaast is er een competitie-element in het project ingebakken. Er kan namelijk gekozen worden wie het mooiste kunstwerk gemaakt heeft, waarmee de winnaar ook weer een mooie prijs kan winnen. Aldus Peter: “Zonder dat ik dat wil ga ik toch kijken en vergelijken. Wie is er beter? Ik word er ongelukkig van.”
Zou er dan gedurende het bedenken van dit proces niemand hebben nagedacht over deze aspecten? En hebben bedacht dat deze uitgekiende marketings- en verleidingsstrategieën voor kinderen niet te begrijpen zouden zijn en ook nadelige aspecten konden hebben? Het geeft maar aan dat het blijkbaar al heel gewoon gevonden wordt dat het transactionele aspect van de online wereld ook het klaslokaal van de allerjongsten binnendringt. Dat zij dit niet kunnen overzien en begrijpen is duidelijk.
Van de bedenkers en leerkrachten zou je echter wel wat meer mogen verwachten, zeker wanneer er op de website aangegeven wordt dat aansluit op de competenties en kerndoelen rondom 21e-eeuwse vaardigheden. Het geeft nog maar eens extra aan waarom de ambitie om burgers in staat te stellen om actief en kritisch deel te nemen aan de digitaliserende samenleving inderdaad voor zeer uiteenlopende doelgroepen relevant is. Slechte ideeën zullen er altijd blijven, maar met de gave om ze goed kunnen beoordelen kan de wereld al snel een beetje mooier worden.
* de namen van onze vrienden zijn vanwege privacyredenen fictief
Have you seen The Social Dilemma? For many, watching this controversial Netflix docu will have been a sobering experience. In case you missed it: the film provides a glimpse into the true workings of social media, namely the unbridled collection of user data in order to ultimately influence the behavior of those same users.
According to various insiders, this has disastrous consequences and goes much further than being able to predict which ad will be clicked. Tim Kendall, a former Facebook executive, fears that the massive online polarization in the US will soon lead to a real civil war. And tech philosopher Jaron Lanier even predicts the end of the world.
It is not the first time that these kinds of doom scenarios have been sketched. In 2019’s The Great Hack (also on Netflix) the story behind data company Cambridge Analytica and its questionable role in the previous US presidential elections was told. What both documentaries also have in common is that it’s former insiders who get to tell their stories. Certainly with The Social Dilemma that feels a bit strange. After all, isn’t it easy to be critical after having held a prominent, well-paid position at Facebook, Twitter, Google or Instagram for years?
In a critical article titled The Prodigal Techbro, author Maria Farrell argues that when collaborators she believes are co-responsible for today’s tech dystopia now lead the critical dance, it will never be possible to truly invent what the machinations behind social media companies are. Isn’t enforcing regulation of those same companies much more a role for the government, which is advised by independent experts?
So it comes down to sincere and independent criticism. Which also brings me to libraries, because after all, we also play a role in this debate. When we speak of digital inclusion and digital citizenship, we enable people to deal independently as much as possible with what passes by in (digital) life. Being able to critically use technology becomes increasingly important.
Libraries therefore pay a lot of attention to this in their programming. Maker spaces in libraries, for example, are places to learn how things are made and how they function. As a result, you are much better able to have an opinion about that. With a method like the Data Detox Kit, libraries enable people to regain control of their personal data, without having to give up the technology they use. And in The Netherlands librarians help people with the national Corona app (CoronaMelder). They do that not only through assistance with installation, but, at least as importantly, also by advising on the considerations that you can make beforehand. How do you make an informed decision whether or not to use the app?
The starting point is that in libraries the human aspect is paramount. What role do you play as an individual or group of people in the use of technology? And what questions do you ask yourself and each other? Ultimately, the first realization the next time you get the message “We added a series for you” on Netflix will be that it didn’t come out of the blue.
**
This column was originally written in Dutch and published in the 50th anniversary magazine of NBD Biblion.
Civil rights activist and congressman John Lewispassed away. At the 2017 Congress of the American Library Association, he spoke at the Library of Congress booth, where he was welcomed by librarian of congress, Carla Hayden. I had the pleasure to be there and shoot this video.
Vorige week verzorgde ik, samen met Nathan Speekenbrink (Bibliotheek Midden-Brabant), een bijdrage voor het Webinar Privacy van Probiblio. Ik vertelde over privacygerelateerde activiteiten in bibliotheken en de stappen die we daarin bij Fers en partners zetten, Nathan over het verwerkingsregister (AVG).
Een videofragment uit VPRO Tegenlichtuitzending ‘De Grote Dataroof’ dat ik in mijn verhaal gebruikte kan op Youtube helaas niet gedeeld worden, maar de gehele uitzending vind je hier.
Video calling with Zoom? The service has to repair so much in order to be considered a privacy-friendly and safe video calling option that there is almost no beginning. New York City has banned Zoom from its schools, the Dutch Ministry of Defense prohibits use and the American government is also hesitant. Security expert Bruce Schneier writes in his article Security and Privacy Implications of Zoom:
“Zoom is a security and privacy disaster, but until now had managed to avoid public accountability because it was relatively obscure. Now that it’s in the spotlight, it’s all coming out. (Their 4/1 response to all of this is here.) On 4/2, the company said it would freeze all feature development and focus on security and privacy. Let’s see if that’s anything more than a PR move.”
If the inventor of surveillance capitalism seizes the opportunity to fill in the gap then you’re out of the game. And even Facebook tries to get a bite. To be honest, Zoom has worked on the shortcomings since. Even Schneier compliments them for that.
But frankly, that cleans up nicely, because it’s a choice less in determining a video calling service that does deserve to get positive attention. And one that fits the image of public libraries, especially since many libraries hardly seem to be concerned with this topic. And that is remarkable, because video calling has quickly become our second nature of communication, with all the additional questions and challenges that this entails. A solid informative function from libraries fits in with this, certainly based on the broadly embraced principle of digital inclusion.
Digital inclusion
Libraries, together with other social and private partners, have put the topic of digital inclusion high on the agenda. This means that citizens are enabled to participate as much as possible in the digital society. Practically this for example concerns support in accessing digital public services. From the Dutch Letter to Parliament on Digital Inclusion:
In the Netherlands, we are increasingly communicating digitally. This has a major impact on everyone’s life. Technology can prepare our country for the future. It offers opportunities. But for many people, developments are moving very fast. We have to take this into account. We will ensure that everyone can participate in the digital society. Also the people who need extra help.
However, at the time of adopting the concept of digital inclusion, we could not foresee the impact of the corona crisis on digital participation in a much broader sense than just access to digital government. Everyone is suddenly forced to move online to have a bit of sense of participation. The convenience of digital services is extremely important in this. However, that all too easily means that other topics, such as privacy and security, whether you like it or not, simply are deemed less important.
Acknowledging this, libraries can play a positive and distinctive role. Real effective digital inclusivity, with video calling as a current, but also permanent pilar, means that all elements of video calling services should be assessed, propagated and perhaps even facilitated.
Assessment
But what services are there and what are their pros and cons? Fortunately, an inventory has already been made by countless reliable parties. Libraries can have a close look at the results and make them their own. No overview is complete, but you quickly get a picture of the most important players. For example, take a look at this report from the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (Dutch Data Protection Authority).
Because we were all thrown into the deep, everyone had to make a choice for services to use. For some, it was easier than for others, but I think it’s safe to assume that a tool’s functionality was at the top for almost everyone: it just has to work and not being too difficult.
On the one hand that means that you easily choose for something you already know, for example Whatsapp, Facebook Messenger or Facetime. For professional use this becomes a bit more difficult and you see that tools with a lot of marketing power (Zoom), or tools from well-known companies, or services from providers for which you already pay (Google Meet, Microsoft Teams) are the easiest to adopt to. That is also understandable, but maybe not always the best reasons to make a decision.
Functionality vs library values
It is crystal clear that a video calling service first of all should work and preferably shouldn’t be too complicated. Importanty however is that it must also meet a number of requirements that have nothing to do with functionality, but that do fit the image of the public library. Being privacy friendly is high on the list, as is security, preferably a non-commercial character and the possibility to manage the tool itself (which often means that it is also open-source, which is also an advantage). In short, I ask myself the question:
Which tool do I proudly use in the library and also deserves recognition towards colleagues and the public?
An inspiration for tools that I would use myself, because they meet the question above, I find at Waag Society. They have made an inventory of tools that they have brought together according to the following reasoning:
“The Netherlands works at home, so we were looking for good solutions to continue working together. However, with many technologies we use, we notice that something is wrong: we are being tracked and our data is being misused and traded. At Waag we want fair alternatives and we research open, safe and fair tools. We call these technologies the Public Stack: a stack of technologies that values people, society and the world as central values – and not the shareholder.”
So there’s more to a service than functionality. I believe that libraries also have an external responsibility: to what extent do we inform the public about which video calling services are recommended from a library perspective? And don’t we have an extra responsibility when it comes to less digitally skilled citizens? For me it goes without saying that we definitely have an assignment to fulfill, because otherwise some of us aren’t able to participate.
Our daily library practice is not too positive
Asking yourself the above question seems obvious, but unfortunately it is not. Although libraries increasingly seem to make choices for tools for their own use (regardless of whether these are sensible ones), there is actually no message to patrons. Also the National Library also has no policy or advice which services to use. A question I asked them at the beginning of the crisis to take a stance and host a Jitsi Server could initially count on enthusiasm, but in the end turned out not to be a priority. The roll-out of other digital services was deemed more important. Of course I cannot say much about those internal choices, except that I thought and think it was a missed opportunity.
A quick scan of Dutch library websites also shows that there isn’t much to be found about this subject. On some library websites a reference is made to Seniorweb’s (volunteer organization to help people understanding the digital world) offer of Thuis Online (HomeOnline). However, that does not go much further than advising well-known consumer services such as Whatsapp, Facetime, Zoom and Skype. If I’m asking myself the question above, my answer is a resounding “No“.
Which video calling service should libraries embrace?
This blog post is about video calling services: applications to communicate with individual or limited groups of colleagues or patrons. This means that applications for providing webinars are not specifically mentioned.
In a blog post on the Fers website I wrote about our positive experiences with Jitsi. This service is also praised in many other places, for example by Bits of Freedom and the Dutch Consumers’ Association. At Fers we are currently investigating whether we can provide our own Jitsi server. It is expected this will have a positive effect on the occasionally unstable connection when you depend on the official Jitsi server.
A few weeks ago I participated in a webinar from Waag Society, hosted on their own Jitsi server. Fot the duration of two hours 40 people at the same time took part without any issues. So that is positive. In the meantime, you can use Jitsi via Dutch servers here. Marcus Bergsma wrote a manual (Dutch) if you want to get started.
A tool that is gaining fame is BigBlueButton. Unlike Jitsi, this tool is much more than just a video calling service (it is designed for educational use), but like Jitsi, it can be managed independently. This also applies to the well-rated services Nextcloud Talk and Riot. And to experience that open source isn’t scary, try using Signal (and to get started ask a few colleagues to join you) instead of Whatsapp. It works the same, but is safe and privacy-friendly.
And which video calling service shouldn’t be?
If you take a closer look at the whole set of features of video calling services, and broaden them with core library values, a tool like Zoom easily can be ignored. Feel free to use it for yourself if you want, but using it as a library, and thus promoting it, simply does not fit. I would also not be approaching users with services that charge a premium for extra functionality, such as Whereby (which scores well on elements such as privacy and security).
Onwards to true digital inclusion
Video calling has become indispensable and therefore an important part of a digitally inclusive society. The aforementioned Letter to Parliament on Digital Inclusion is subtitled “everyone should be able to participate“. The British Good Things Foundation, whose approach to a Britsh Digital Agenda inspired the Dutch Parliament Letter, very recently published an already updated vision: A new manifesto for digital inclusion. For me, this is the core element:
“This is where digital intersects with community. The overriding reasons people give for their digital exclusion reflect poverty – they can’t afford a device or connectivity – but are also strongly based on motivation. Lack of interest and fear of harm are at the top of the list. So widening access to technology can only happen if these barriers are addressed.”
Therefore the challenge is to remove disinterest for the digital world. This is not made easier by an increasing and well-founded fear of internet crime, with phishing, data breaches and fake news & disinformation as important topics. The manifesto then continues with a direct invitation to libraries, which also ties in with Doug Belshaw’s individual approach in his Essential Elements of Digital Literacies:
“Only by building trust, and finding the way digital can be relevant for that person at that time, can you build the confidence to start learning digital skills. And this is the special skill and passion of special people in our communities: those who work in community organisations, from small charities and libraries to social enterprises and housing associations.”
Getting started: collecting and disseminating knowledge
The need for an increase in knowledge is substantiated in Alert Online’s Cyber Security Survey 2019, in which the researchers advise that only investing in knowledge helps making citizens more digitally resilient. That is a wonderful and necessary step for libraries to take and which we must make our own. This means however that we have to start with ourselves. However, that, starting with ourselves, there is work to be done. Let the need for secure video calling services be the best motivation we can wish for.
Adviseur digitaal burgerschap bij de Koninklijke Bibliotheek en projectleider digitaal burgerschap bij Firda. Lid van Platform digitaal burgerschap Friesland. Mede-auteur van het AI Kookboek.
Werkte bij Fers o.a. aan Open Bibliotheek Badges, Data Detox Kit, The Glass Room expo, What The Future Wants en FryskLab. Op Eén Na Beste Bibliothecaris van Nederland 2015.
Amateurwielrenner, drummer en muziekfanaat. TEDx-spreker.
