So... you want to work with patron data? Now& #39;s a good time as any to brush up your knowledge on de-identification basics in this week& #39;s newsletter - https://ldhconsultingservices.com/so-you-want-to-work-with-patron-data-de-identification-basics/">https://ldhconsultingservices.com/so-you-wa...

This scheduled PSA comes to you thanks to a recent #code4lib journal article that had a number of data privacy issues. The newsletter addresses only one of those issues.

Unfortunately, the comment form on the journal article is not letting me submit comments...

So while we wait for the comment form to be fixed, here is the comment text! https://docs.google.com/document/d/12CRFwsV-vqA0Il0hd3ocA9lLbwZdSH-9oQRPg08V9Lw/edit?usp=sharing

In">https://docs.google.com/document/... the comment text there are three main areas of concern about the article:

1. Lack of de-identification & data minimization
2. Data needs and use
3. Data privacy and security

Overall, I& #39;m saddened that the article was published as it was w/o extensive discussion about the privacy and ethical implications of what the authors did with patron data.

And this was an article published in a modified peer review library technology journal.

Articles like this published in well-known & respected journals such as the Code4Lib Journal perpetuate the notion that these practices should not be questioned or challenged b/c it gives the impression that the practices are above board in terms of privacy & professional ethics.

Having a comments section (when it& #39;s working) provides a chance for others in the field to question/critique the articles, but that doesn& #39;t carry the same weight as the decision by the peer editors to publish the article in the form it was to the scholarly/professional record.