This article is focused on privacy and surveillance issues in regards to academic freedom, specifically concerning the UK’s National Identity Card Scheme (NICS). Though the study is exploring these issues in the UK that are not entirely applicable in the US, it provides some interesting information from the student perspective of these issues.

The NICS was implemented in 2006 and has been the subject of controversy, with opponents concerned about risk to privacy and the NICS being expanded into other areas of citizen’s lives. With implementations of laws such as the US PATRIOT Act, UK’s Terrorism Act 2006, and the 2002 Danish anti-terrorism legislation, erosion of patron privacy and expansion of government surveillance is not unfounded in the fears of people regarding the NICS.

The aim of the study was to acquire insights on the user-library trust relationship from the student responses regarding the National Identity Card Scheme, and to what extent library data protection and privacy practices are aligned with user expectations.

The population studied were undergraduate students in a UK university. The study’s research method consisted of online surveys and interviews. A total of 566 responses were recorded, with 27 excluded from analysis. This was an overall response rate of 20.5% of the university’s total undergraduate body. First-year students were over-represented in the study, most likely due to living on campus and having free university internet access.

18.4% of responses were classed as “privacy fundamentalists” while 14.7% of responses were “unconcerned” about privacy issues. The majority of responses, 67% overall, were considered “privacy pragmatists.”

In regards to attitudes towards the NICS, 28.6% were moderately opposed, 25% were strongly opposed, 23.4% were moderately in favor, 15.2% were neutral, 5.4% were strongly in favor, and 1.9% didn’t know. The group of those opposed were by far the largest. Students in mathematics, physical sciences, and medical sciences were far more likely to be “privacy relaxed,” students in life and environmental sciences were far more likely to be “privacy concerned,” and those in the humanities and social sciences were equally divided between both.

Regarding the agreement or disagreement in the statement of trust in the government regarding the purposes of the NICS, 34.9% somewhat agreed, 25.8% somewhat disagreed, and 20.2% didn’t know. 10% strongly disagreed and 7.4% strongly agreed.

In questions of what the library does with student information, students answered primarily that it was for to keep track of lent materials and inform of overdue items, followed by tracking contact information and tracking types of books being loaned for collection development purposes. Interestingly, students were more likely to believe post-NICS that the library uses information to keep track of when the student is in or out of the library, to alert investigative authorities on questionable content being borrowed, and for staff to perform surveillance on student borrowing. The number of students believing those three points more than doubled post-NICS.

55.7% of students answered “probably not” regarding to whether the library passed on information to agencies outside of the university, while 27.3% responded “definitely not.” 53.4% of students were “quite confident” that the libraries dealt with their personal information in a professional manner, while 27.8% were “very confident.

Overall, the article was informative and highlighted that while students generally trusted libraries and librarians with information, there was still a gap in their knowledge of library policies towards patron privacy and outside agency surveillance. The gap might have been due to the over-representation of first-year students, who are likely to be less familiar with library policies than third or fourth year students.

Sutlieff, L., & Chelin, J. (2010). ‘An absolute prerequisite’: The importance of user privacy and trust in maintaining academic freedom at the library. Journal Of Librarianship & Information Science, 42(3), 163-177.