The , the , and the at Berkeley Law School sent (PDF) today. It was about books. Why books?
Google is planning to its book service, . The good news is that millions of books will be available for browsing, reading, and purchasing online. But the bad news is that Google is leaving reader privacy behind.
What you choose to read says a lot about who you are, what you value, and what you believe. You should be able to read about politics, health, or anything else without worrying that someone is looking over your shoulder. That’s why the ACLU has fought alongside libraries and bookstores time and again to defend the privacy of readers. Now we need your help to protect reader privacy into the digital era.
Currently, Google Book Service can monitor the books you browse and search for, the pages you read, and even the notes you write in the "margins." Without strong privacy protections, all of your browsing and reading history may be collected, tracked, and turned over to the government or third parties without your knowledge or consent.
Given the (PDF), Google Book Service must incorporate strong privacy protections that gives us at least as much privacy in books online as we have in our neighborhood library or bookstore. Without a strong privacy policy that protects reader privacy, Google Books could become a one-stop shop for government and third party fishing expeditions into the personal details of your life.
Our letter demanded that Google, at a minimum, take the following steps to protect reader privacy. If these principles resonate with you, join us by emailing Google CEO Eric Schmidt today and demanding that Google:
- Protect your reading records. Readers should be able to use Google books without worrying that the government or a third party is reading over their shoulder. Google needs to promise that it will respond only to properly-issued warrants from law enforcement and court orders from third parties, and then only if stronger protections do not apply. It also must promise that it will let readers know as soon as possible if anyone demands access to information about them. In addition, Google must not provide the title of any book browsed or purchased to credit card processors or any other third party.
- Limit tracking. Just as readers can anonymously browse books in a library or bookstore, they should be able to anonymously browse, search, and preview books using Google Book Search. Google must allow users to browse, search, and preview books without being forced to register or provide any personal information. Google must not keep logging information for any of its Google Book Search services longer than 30 days. In addition, Google must not link any information about a reader's use of Google Book Search with any information about that reader's use of other Google services without specific, informed consent.
- Give you control over your records. Readers should have complete control of their purchases and purchasing data. Google must enable readers to review and delete their records and have extensive permissions controls for their "bookshelves" or any other reading displays. Google must also permit readers to “give” books to anyone, including to themselves, without tracking.
- Keep you informed. Readers should know what information is being collected and maintained about them and when and why reader information has been disclosed. Google must develop a robust and easy-to-read privacy policy and publish annually the number and type of demands for reader information that are received.
Google needs to know that you and other readers will not pay for your digital books with privacy. The ACLU of Northern California is committed to working to protect user privacy in Google Books. Please join us!
Three things you can do today to support reader privacy:
- Defend your reading privacy and that of others by joining us and sending a message to Google CEO Eric Schmidt in support of a robust privacy policy that satisfies the demands listed above.
- Spread the word by forwarding this message, , sending a tweet, or even going old school and just telling a friend or co-worker about this effort. Explain that the Google Book Search settlement is a critical moment that will define the future of reader privacy, and that speaking out now can help architect a better future as digital book systems develop.
- Prepare for additional actions to defend reader privacy by checking back here for updated blog posts and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.