* Jos Westerbeke jos.westerbeke@eur.nl [2020-04-06 10:33]:
If publishers block an entire institution in case of misconduct when a library has chosen for 4.A, how should libraries respond? Should we recommend a pseudonymous identifier? Or is there a way to urge publishers not to block an institution? What are your thoughts on that?
I suppose the same thing would happen that happens today with IP-based access and the institutional proxy or VPN server would run risk of being blocked. I don't know whether such wholesale shutting down of institutions' access happens systematically in practice and in what cases.
Sure, stopping misuse from selected few (mostly from hacked/phished accounts) is important. Whether it is sufficiently important to preemptively lessen the privacy of all subjects and expose them to (the possibility of) detailed behavioural tracking is an open question to me.
(To the extent that whole institutions/libraroes are systematically and regularly blocked wholesale it's of course desirable for those institutions/libraries to prevent such blocking. Therefore they may be susceptible to "blackmail" from publishers to deploy trackable identifiers for all their subjects, to achieve some "business continuity" in the face of publishers otherwise shutting down whole institutions/libraries to stop misuse from individual accounts from those institutions/libraries.)
-peter