[Fim4l] update on FIM4L

Peter Schober peter.schober at univie.ac.at
Mon Apr 6 11:47:51 CEST 2020


* Jos Westerbeke <jos.westerbeke at 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


More information about the FIM4L mailing list